Expert Testimony Expert Scientific Witness Term Paper

Some of the most important tools in the arsenal of the fire investigator include the senses of smell, touch, and physical manipulation. Likewise, the process of logical deduction often provides the correct forensic analysis of the evidence. Under Frye, crucial expert witness testimony relating to the practiced synthesis of the totality of circumstances disclosed by meticulous investigation is often excluded from use at trial.

Certainly, Daubert provided additional flexibility of possible avenues capable of establishing foundational qualification of expert witnesses, but insufficiently to redress the problem.

Conclusion - Carmichael, Federal Rule 702, and Implications for Fire Investigation: The 1999 Carmichael case finally resolved the conflicting standards articulated under Frye and Daubert and their progeny since 1923 and 1993, respectively. In Carmichael, the Supreme Court specifically departed from the Frye standard and expanded the criteria introduced by Daubert to include non-scientific evidence as well as scientific evidence, suggesting that the Daubert court had never actually intended to restrict its ruling to the latter exclusively (Burnette 2008).

Carmichael emphasized the fundamental similarity of Daubert criteria to the purpose and effect of Federal Rule 702 (Burnette 2008) and recognized that certain fields of scientific and non-scientific expertise are demonstrably relevant and sufficiently reliable to satisfy the purpose of expert witness foundational qualification in principle. The impact of Carmichael on modern fire investigation expert witness testimony is two-fold and represents something of a dual-edged sword.On one hand, practical cumulative field experience is no longer necessarily insufficient to qualify expert witnesses under the totality-of-circumstances approach authorized by the Court; on the other hand, the increased latitude that Carmichael affords to the fact finder places a profound burden on fire investigators to articulate the cumulative bases and the precise methodology of their conclusions (Burnette 2008).

In terms of the potential introduction of crucial testimony, the modern standard represents a tremendous improvement for fire investigators; at the same time, the expanded scope of criteria under the authority of the fact finder to qualify expert witnesses also magnifies the potential harm of poor preparation, methodology, and record retention. Ultimately, the post-Frye/Daubert evolution of the expert witness qualification process promotes better training of fire investigators as well as lessening the incidence of the exclusion of crucial and relevant evidence at trial.

Bibliography

Burnette, G.E. (2008) Fire Scene Investigation: The Daubert Challenge

Retrieved from the Interfire.org. website, at http://www.interfire.org/features/fsi_daubert_challenge.asp

Cleary, E.W. (2007) McCormick's Hornbook on Evidence, 6th Edition (Hornbook Series) St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Friedman, L.M. (2005) a History of American Law. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Schmalleger, F.….....