Commentary on: Page M, Taylor J, Blenkin M. Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part II--judicial reasoning in decisions to exclude forensic identification evidence on grounds of reliability. J Forensic Sci 2011;56(4):913-7.

Abstract

Those supposed quotes, as repeated in the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, are not from my testimony, but from the defense counsel’s characterization thereof. I have never testified to the infallibility of any technique. A defense expert raised the issue that no validation studies had been conducted on the media used to recreate the stab marks made by the knife and replicate the marks on the cartilage (true, but not an unusual practice in 1983). In response, I countered that using an unsuitable media could not create a false positive identification. These are manifestly different statements. Furthermore, Florida’s guidelines for the acceptance of expert testimony follow the Frye standard, with acceptance in the relevant field as a measure of validity. The techniques used in Ramirez were identical to those used in a prior case, published by Rao and Hart (2), and subsequently presented at the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners annual meeting.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01985.x

Cite this paper

@article{Hart2012CommentaryOP, title={Commentary on: Page M, Taylor J, Blenkin M. Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part II--judicial reasoning in decisions to exclude forensic identification evidence on grounds of reliability. J Forensic Sci 2011;56(4):913-7.}, author={Robert P. Hart}, journal={Journal of forensic sciences}, year={2012}, volume={57 1}, pages={278} }