Question 1

The Frye decision overturned the Daubert v. Merrill Dow pharmaceutical decision in 1983.

Accepted Answer

The Frye decision and the Daubert decision are two separate court rulings. The Frye decision was issued in 1923, while the Daubert decision was issued in 1993. The Daubert decision did not overturn the Frye decision, but rather set new standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence in federal court.

Question 2

The major rule of evidence at trial is that all evidence must be relevant and competent in order to be admissible.

Accepted Answer

This is correct. Relevance and competence are two key requirements for admissibility of evidence in a trial. Evidence must have some logical connection to the facts at issue and also be reliable and trustworthy.

Question 3

Material means that evidence has something to do with the case being tried at hand.

Accepted Answer

Material evidence is evidence that is relevant to the specific case being tried.

Question 4

Probative value of evidence refers to the fact evidence must be relevant.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Probative value of evidence refers to the...

Question 5

he Frye standard focused on the relevance of evidence standard more than the general acceptance standard.

Accepted Answer

The Frye standard primarily focused on the "general acceptance" of scientific evidence within the relevant scientific community, rather than on the relevance of the evidence.

Question 6

General acceptance generally means that a specific technique is published in a peer reviewed journal.

Accepted Answer

General acceptance typically refers to a specific technique or theory being widely recognized and used among researchers in a particular field. One key indication of general acceptance is publication in a peer reviewed journal, where other experts have reviewed and validated the technique or theory before publication.

Question 7

Daubert v. Merrill Dow used statistical significance as a point to contend a certain drug caused birth defects.

Accepted Answer

The Daubert v. Merrill Dow case did use statistical significance as a point to contend that a certain drug caused birth defects. The case involved the drug Bendectin and the plaintiffs argued that there was a statistically significant association between the drug and birth defects. The court ruled that the plaintiffs' evidence did not meet the Daubert standard for scientific validity, but the case is still often cited in discussions of statistical significance and causation.

Question 8

The Federal Rules of Evidence are used to determine admissibility of evidence in federal court.

Accepted Answer

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) are a set of rules governing the admissibility of evidence in federal court proceedings in the United States. Therefore, the statement is true.

Question 9

The majority of states still use the Frye decision to determine admissibility of evidence in court..

Accepted Answer

The majority of states now use the Daubert standard to determine admissibility of evidence in court, while a few states still use Frye.

Question 10

The majority of states still use the Daubert decision to determine admissibility of evidence in court.

Accepted Answer

The Daubert decision is still the prevailing standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony in federal court, and the majority of states have also adopted Daubert or a similar standard.

Question 11

Some states actually treat laboratory reports as business records and admit such evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Accepted Answer

Some states have laws that allow laboratory reports to be admitted as business records, which are an exception to the hearsay rule. This means that the reports can be used as evidence in court without the person who created the report testifying in person.

Question 12

An expert witness must possess a PhD.

Accepted Answer

It is not a requirement for an expert witness to possess a PhD. The qualifications for an expert witness depend on the specific case and the opinions being sought. Some expert witnesses may have a PhD while others may have extensive experience in a relevant field without a PhD.

Question 13

An auto mechanic who specializes in brake repairs and has extensive trainingcould qualify as an expert witness.

Accepted Answer

An auto mechanic who specializes in brake repairs and has extensive training could possess specialized knowledge and experience that would qualify them as an expert witness in a legal case involving brake issues.

Question 14

A subpoena is an order to cease and desist an action.

Accepted Answer

A subpoena is not an order to cease and desist an action. It is a legal document that requires a person to appear in court or produce certain documents or evidence.

Question 15

A subpoena duces tecum is rarely issued to call an expert witness.

Accepted Answer

A subpoena duces tecum can be issued to require an expert witness to bring and produce documents, materials, or other evidence in their possession relevant to the case.

Question 16

It is critical that expert witnesses speak in technical and complicated jargon when juries are present to hear their testimony.

Accepted Answer

Expert witnesses should aim to explain technical concepts in a way that is understandable for the average juror. Using overly complicated jargon can confuse and alienate jurors, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of their testimony.

Question 17

The trier of fact in a bench trial is a

Accepted Answer

The answer of The trier of fact in a bench...

Question 18

Two types of examination of witnesses in the courtroom are

Accepted Answer

The two types of examination of witnesses in the courtroom are direct examination, which is conducted by the attorney who called the witness to testify, and cross-examination, which is conducted by the opposing attorney to challenge the witness's testimony. The other answer choices are incorrect because they do not accurately reflect the types of examination of witnesses in the courtroom.

Question 19

Under what Federal Rule of Evidence are expert witnesses defined?

Accepted Answer

Expert witnesses are defined under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which outlines the qualifications, testimony, and admissibility of expert witness testimony in federal court cases.

Question 20

The two types of witness testimony in court are

Accepted Answer

The two types of witness testimony in court are expert testimony and lay testimony. Expert witnesses are individuals who have specialized knowledge and experience in a particular field, and can provide opinions and interpretations based on that expertise. Lay witnesses, on the other hand, are individuals who have firsthand knowledge of the events in question and can provide testimony based on their personal observations and experiences. Direct and cross examination refer to the manner in which the witness is questioned during their testimony, while voir dire and Fry are not types of witness testimony.

Quiz 24: Presentation of Forensic Evidence in Court