Lustre, Annotation, Post-Daubert Standards for Admissibility of Scientific and Other Expert Evidence in State Courts, 90 A.L.R.5th 453, [section] 2 (2011) (noting that 25 states have formally adopted Daubert as the standard for admissibility, while fifteen states plus the District of Columbia still use Frye; six states combine Daubert factors
into Frye, and four states have unique tests).
(325) In dissent, Judge Michael conscientiously applied the Daubert factors
. First, he noted that the "government did not offer any record of testing on the reliability of fingerprint identification....
14, 2011) ("the inquiry required by Daubert is meant to be a 'flexible one,' and expert testimony which does not meet all or most of the Daubert factors
may still be admissible based on the specific facts of a particular case"); Nelson v.
testimony, as well as the Supreme Court's Daubert factors
(209) The judge used the Daubert factors
to make a policy judgment about intelligent design.
[did] not presume to set out a definitive checklist or test." (36) Indeed, the "Daubert factors
are not holy writ, in a particular case the failure to apply one or another of them may be unreasonable, and hence an abuse of discretion." (37)
(57) The Daubert factors
, which are exemplary rather than exhaustive, are (1) whether the technique or theory can be or has been tested, (2) whether the technique or theory has been subjected to peer review and publication, (3) what the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory is when applied, (4) whether standards are maintained to control the technique's operation, and (5) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.
(98) The Daubert opinion lists several factors germane to the question of whether or not proffered evidence constitutes admissible "scientific knowledge", or more commonly known as the Daubert factors
. (99) The first factor for consideration is "whether a theory or technique ...
Courts often do not critically apply the Daubert factors
but merely accept toolmark or ballistics identification as scientifically reliable.
(4) Where an evaluation of deception detection based on the original Daubert factors
is vague and provides the gatekeeper insufficient guidance, applying the approach proposed in this article affords the trial judge a set of analytical steps to craft a decision persuasive to both counsel and the appellate bench.
the Daubert factors
[was] reasonable," the court refused to reverse
(65.) The now famous Daubert factors
are: (1) testing; (2) peer