On February 9, 2012, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in the case of King v. Florida (http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2012/sc09-2421.pdf).
In this case, the court ruled on the admissibility of tool mark identification science. the Supreme Court ruled that a Frye hearing is only warranted when "an expert attempts to render an opinion that is based on new or novel scientific techniques", citing U.S. Sugar Corp. v. Henson, 823 So. 2d 104, 109 (Fla. 2002).
In my opinion, the court completely missed the point. Using the courts reason, we could then admit the testimony of phrenology experts, because the use of phrenology is an old science. In some areas of science, scientific techniques and statistical inference out strips old techniques. This is certainly the case with criminal evidence – there is a revolution in criminal science investigations and techniques, spawned, in part, by these dates of CSI and related television shows.
It's time to jettison the old Frye standard in Florida law and replace it with the Daubert standard. Experts, the courts, and the public would all benefit from an increased rigor in expert testimony. For criminal defendants, it's a life-and-death matter.
Florida legislators, at the behest of Governor Scott, have taken up the issue. See HB 391, and SB 822. However, for unknown reasons, the bills have floundered, not even being voted on.
It's time to require experts to adhere to a more scientific basis for their opinions.
I'm glad Florida has adopted the Daubert standard for expert evidence. Perhaps they read my blog? :-) Have yet to see any published decisions yet, tho. http://psyris.com/bruceborkosky
ReplyDelete