 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hyundai Motor Co. v. Ferayorni8/15/2001
scientifically examined, such as the knife and the wounds in Ramirez, or DNA, both the underlying science and the methods used in the case at hand must have gained general acceptance.
The science involved in the present case is different. It is like the child abuse profile or syndrome testimony which was at issue in Hadden v. State, 690 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1997). In Hadden the underlying science did not pass the Frye test. It is clear, however, from reading our supreme court's opinion in Hadden, that had the underlying science passed the Frye test, the expert would have been permitted to render his opinion based on his observations of the child victim in light of the underlying science. Id. at 580, 581. As our supreme court observed in Ramirez: "The principle inquiry under the Frye test is whether the scientific theory or a discovery from which an expert derives an opinion is reliable." 651 So. 2d at 1167. In this case there was no objection to the scientific theory.
Requiring the expert in the present case to submit the Hyundai warnings to one or more focus groups would not be scientific. In fact, submitting these particular warnings to a few focus groups, and presenting those results to the jury, would be the antithesis of science. It would merely be an experiment. As our supreme court pointed out in Stokes v. State, 548 So. 2d 188, 193 (Fla. 1989) the reasoning behind the Frye rule is that "a courtroom is not a laboratory, and as such it is not the place to conduct scientific experiments." Hyundai's objections were, accordingly, not well taken.
Page 1 2 3 4 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|