The Scientific Method Expert | State v. Romero
Case Analysis:
State v. Romero (2016)
The Arizona Supreme Court Rules that the Scientific Method is a Proper Subject for Expert Testimony and Cross-Examination
Basic Facts
The victim was killed by two gunshot wounds. Six shell casings were found at the scene.
Police later discovered a gun along a path Romero had just traveled.
Years later, a government firearms expert conducted ballistics tests on the gun found near Romero. Based upon his testing, the expert concluded the indentations the gun left on the shell casings matched those on the shell casings found near the body.
The State charged Romero with murder based upon their expert's opinions.
Procedural History
First Jury Trial. The government’s firearm expert testified and concluded the casings at the scene matched the gun found near Romero. However, a mistrial resulted.
Comment:
The scientific method is a fundamental process. It uses logical steps to answer questions. It is only by properly following every step , that is required in a specific circumstance, can you determine if something is the product science or not?
Skip a necessary step – and your results – cannot be relied on.
Failure to properly conduct a necessary step – and your results – cannot be relied on.
Subsequent Rule 702 Hearing. After the mistrial but prior to the second trial, Romero moved to exclude the government expert testimony. The trial court held a Rule 702 hearing applying the principles set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
At the hearing, Romero presented the testimony of an expert in the requirements of fundamental scientific methods. Romero’s expert, Dr. Haber, at the hearing:
- Stated the general features of conventional toolmark comparison testing that fell short of scientific standards for experimental design.
- He further testified that those failings limited the scientific weight that could be placed on the results of any such test.
- Opined that the tests, even if conducted correctly, could not scientifically justify the conclusions that the government sought to draw.
Dr. Haber was not offered to:
- Comment on the facts of the case
- To opine whether Powell was “ right or wrong .”
The trial denied Romero’s motion to preclude the government’s expert’s testimony. However, the court went a step further. At the same it granted the government’s motion to preclude Dr. Haber from testifying as a defense expert at the jury trial.
The Second Trial. Romero was acquitted of first-degree murder. However, he was convicted of second-degree murder.
Arizona Court of Appeals
Arizona Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. See State v. Romero , 236 Ariz. 451, ¶¶ 18-32 457-60 (App. 2014)). A majority of the court of appeals’ panel affirmed the conviction and the exclusion of Romero’s expert’s testimony.
Arizona Supreme Court
The Scope of Review
The court agreed to review only the trial court court’s ruling regarding the preclusion of Dr. Haber’s testimony at trial. The Court did not review the denial of Romero’s Daubert challenge regarding the government’s expert.
The Issue
The Court frames the issue as whether Romero’s expert was qualified in field that he was offer for at trial – experimental deign.
The Purpose Dr. Haber's Testimony
Dr. Haber’s testimony served more than one purpose. While the trial did not find it persuasive enough to grant Romero’s Rule 702 Motion – Romero also sought to use it to persuade the jury.
The Court correctly stated why Romero was calling Dr. Haber at his jury trial: “the methods generally used in conventional toolmark analysis fall short of scientific standards for experimental design.”
The purpose of Dr. Haber’s testimony went to “the scientific weight” the jury should (or should not) give the government’s expert testimony.
Qualified for His Purpose
Dr. Haber was an expert in the field of experimental design. Put another way, he was an expert regarding the fundamental requirements of the scientific method.
The Arizona Supreme Court found: “[w]ith respect to experimental design, and a comparison of the methods generally used by firearms examiners to the scientific method , Dr. Haber is qualified as an expert.”
Helpful to the Jury
Rule 702 requires that expert testimony be “helpful” to the jury in understanding the evidence. Ariz. R. Evid. 702(a).
The purpose of the government’s expert’s testimony was to match the shell casings to the gun. The bases of this conclusion were “toolmark comparisons.” The government’s expert quantified his match opinion was to “ a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. ”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court found “Dr. Haber’s testimony would have been helpful to the jury in understanding how the toolmark analysis differed from general scientific methods and in evaluating the accuracy of Powell’s conclusions regarding ‘scientific certainty.’”
The court also explained how the testimony could be helpful:
Dr. Haber’s testimony was that the methods underlying toolmark analysis “are not based on the scientific method.” Rather, they are merely the “subjective determinations” by the examiner conducting the analysis.
Firearms examiners don’t follow an accepted method for evaluating characteristics of fired shell casings and comparing them to control subjects. Dr. Haber could have helped the jury assess how much weight to place on Powell’s “scientific” conclusion that the shell casings at the murder scene could only have been fired from the Gun found by the police near Romero.
Dr. Haber’s testimony would have been helpful despite the fact he did not perform a toolmark analysis.
Not a Second Daubert Hearing
The Supreme Court determined that the “trial court’s alternative ground for preclusion was an error of law.”
- The trial court’s reasoning “fail[ed] to recognize that very often the same proof used to establish admissibility also impacts weight and credibility .”
- Blanket preclusion at trial of evidence presented at a pretrial hearing “ infringe[s] upon the role of the jury and improperly insulate[s] the state’s evidence from critique.”
The trial court’s alternative ground for preclusion was determined to be an error of law.
In the End...
The Supreme Court “vacate paragraphs 19 through 32 of the opinion of the court of appeals.” It also remanded the case to the court to determine if the exclusion Dr. Haber’s testimony was “harmless.”
The post The Scientific Method Expert | State v. Romero appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
Summary appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
DUI Library
The best DUI defense stuff that only a few know and none want to share. A one of a kind annotated resource for lawyers, people accused, or anyone who wants to see what’s going on in our justice system with DUI cases…and how to fix it.
Contact Information
PHONE
Office Hours
- Mon - Fri
- -
- Sat - Sun
- Closed
What Happens After You Reach Out
Ready to Fix This?
Contact Us
OUR SERVICES
QUICK LINKS
