What's New in Daubert cases

[L.J.Steele]

I've been asked to be part of a panel on Daubert at the upcoming NEIDI conference. I'm pulling together notes on the kinds of things you may see in future Daubert motions -- anyone seen anything they'd like to mention for inclusion?

I've got:
(1) Psychological issues -- the Stacey report on Mayfied and Dror's studies
(2) Comparisons with eyewitness ID -- Pat W's experience and some arguments made in the Patterson briefs.
(3) Digitial imaging issues -- a couple of articles on that from NACDL's Champion.

What else have y'all seen from the stand as clever ideas from my colleagues?

[Pat A Wertheim]

Lisa and I have emailed a little about the shifting focus of Daubert in some of the challenges and what she wants to do is share all of this with us in the panel at NEDIAI and help us deal with these challenges. I'm trying to get some idea of the off-the-wall issues being raised, too. Any good (or bad) stories out there about recent defense pretrial challenges, evidential hearings, trial or voir dir questions, etc., that might help us identify upcoming trends in Daubert challenges?
Thanks,
Pat Wertheim

[Cindy Homer]

In my Daubert hearing (footwear), after going through the prongs of Daubert, the defense went on to my credentials. He asked alot about certification, and got confused about the difference between membership in IAI and certification. He was trying to say that all one had to do is pay a fee and one is "certified" by the IAI. He even showed me a copy of the web page that outlined the certification process as well as the IAI membership application. He did this both in the Daubert hearing as well as in the subsequent trial (leading me to believe he wasnt confused at all but was trying to confuse the issue). I explained the difference and the requirements for membership and the requirements for certification. He then made a big deal about the fact that I wasnt certified and didnt even qualify for certification because (at the time) I hadnt met the three year experience requirement.

The other thing he did was try to say that there was no need for an expert to testify to the footwear identification, that there was nothing to footwear impression analysis and it only entailed looking at a pattern and that anyone could do that, thus trying to indicate that it wasnt a science at all because anyone could do it.

Those were the most intersting "twists" I got during my Daubert. The attack on IAI membership and certification process as well as trying to say that it wasnt a science because anyone could do it.