Blog Layout

The Scientific Method Expert | State v. Romero

Lawrence Koplow • Nov 19, 2019

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

Scientific Method Experts and Daubert
Relevant Facts
Trial Court
Opinion at Issue
Court of Appeals
Supreme Court

Basic Facts

Victim is Shot

The victim was killed by two gunshot wounds. Six shell casings were found at the scene.

The Police Find...

Police later discovered a gun along a path Romero had just traveled.

State v. Romero (Facts)
A Police Ballistics Expert

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.

State v. Romero (Powell Opinion)
Romero is Charged

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.
State v. Romero (Court of Appeals Ruling)

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. 

State v. Romero (Supreme Court Issue)

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.

State v. Romero (Expert Design)

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.

State v. Romero (Purpose of Haber)

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:

Subjective Determinations

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.

Weight of the “Scientific” Conclusion

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.

  Educating about general principles.

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.”

Lawrence Koplow Signature
By Lawrence Koplow 09 Sep, 2020
The reported results of a BAC test in DUI cases appear to provide the answer we are seeking: how much ethanol is in a person’s blood.  However, let’s look at the fine print. The Reported Results A machine called a gas chromatograph is used to measure an alcohol concentration in blood samples.   The measurement, which […] The post Reported Result vs. Complete Result appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 05 Sep, 2020
The appearance of science can become the appearance of truth - even when the junk science is employed. Do we provide enough bandwidth to debunk these unreliable scientific claims? The post A Legal Bandwidth Problem appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 27 Aug, 2020
Measuring is different from counting. However, in forensic science the two are often suggested to be the same. This needs to change. MEASURING Measuring is the assignment of a number, and all the uncertainties of that of that number, to something.  The purpose of assigning a number is to give meaning to the object measured. […] The post Measuring and Counting | Forensic Science appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 23 Aug, 2020
What Do You Give a Shit About? You probably haven’t really considered the question. Finding the answer is not as easy as it may seem. Looking inward is uncomfortable. Self-examination requires courage. It may also demand change. Once you see what you really give a shit about – you can’t unsee it. Once you define […] The post Give a shit? appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 10 Aug, 2020
The Vermont Supreme Court holds xx The Constitutional Question xx The Legal Answer(s)  A xx  majority opinion reversed the appellate court decision finding: xx xx XX The Facts Traffic Stop A Vermont state trooper monitoring traffic on an Interstate.  He observed a vehicle traveling northbound without its rear license plate illuminated. The officer stopped the […] The post Validity of Consent To Search | Vermont v. Weisler appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 05 Aug, 2020
Esketamine Drug DUI Cases Will Become An Issue in Arizona It is well established that Depression is a common and serious health problem. According to the World Health Organization the disease affects more than 264 million people. Common Depression Treatments Depression treatments typically include antidepressant medications that fall in a class of drugs known as […] The post Esketamine DUI: How is it Different than Ketamine? appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 27 Jul, 2020
Arizona has an incarceration problem. We incarcerate people at a higher rate than most other states and many other countries. Incarcerating such a high rate of people comes with both a social and economic cost. To address these issues, several years ago the Arizona legislature passed a law that authorized a portion of a jail […] The post Home Detention: Approved for Maricopa County in DUI Cases appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 21 Jul, 2020
In the November 2020 election, a restricted use of recreational marijuana will be on Arizona voter’s ballots. The ballot initiative essentially decriminalizes possession and use of small amounts of cannabis. Currently, possession of marijuana is a felony in Arizona. This initiative would end such prosecutions. Arizona’s Marijuana initiative is titled the Smart and Safe Arizona […] The post 9 Facts About Arizona’s Recreational Marijuana Initiative (2020) appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 26 Jun, 2020
Justice Gorsuch authored the majority opinion The Legal Question Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex.  Does this mean the statute prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation? The Legal Answer Yes.  Employers who fire employees for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the […] The post Bostock v. Clayton County
Summary appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
By Lawrence Koplow 02 May, 2020
Sometimes, what you need, is found in the last place you would ever expect it. When a teenage kid is caught in the middle of trying to steal the tires off the Batmobile you expect something to happen. You expect Batman to dispense his brand of “justice”.   https://youtu.be/7sVDEXfMdXo However, maybe his idea of justice […] The post Strength and Compassion of Batman [Updated 2020] appeared first on Lawrence Koplow: Arizona DUI Attorney | Phoenix & Scottsdale.
More Posts
Share by: