HAWKEYE V. ROBERT DOYLE

defendant-appellant Robert Boyle (Defendant) in the appeal of the ruling of the trial court in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the testimony of the State's witness concerning her use of a specially trained canine to detect accelerants used in arson.

The district court erred in ruling that Hawkeye Rules of Evidence superseded the State's general acceptance standard for the admissibility of allegedly scientific expert testimony under the rationale and "general observations" of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). The U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is not binding on the courts of the State of Hawkeye which are free to adopt their own rules of evidence and interpretations thereof. The standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence set forth in Steffens v. Lease, 284 Hawk. 302, 305 (1989) should remain the evidentiary law in Hawkeye because under it the judicial process is better protected against the introduction of bogus or unreliable evidence than would be the case if the Daubert interpretation were to govern the admission of such evidence in Hawkeye. In ruling as it did on Defendant's motion to suppress, the district court exceeded its powers. Defendant's rights were materially prejudiced by the district court's ruling because the admission of the evidence of the

. . .
d the Kelly, Frye and Steffens exclusionary rules is to prevent the courts from becoming inundated with bogus and pseudo-scientific evidence which has not gained general acceptance in the scientific community. The California courts have admitted scientific evidence such as the results of DNA testing which has gained acceptance in the scientific community but have excluded more speculative evidence such as testimony concerning Repressed Memory Syndrome which has not been accepted by that community as being reliable. Imwinklereid credits author Peter Huber for being among the first to warn in 1991 of the danger that the "evidentiary standards controlling the admission of expert proof [might be liberalized] . . . to the point that the courts were routinely admitting testimony about spurious scientific advances." Faigman, Porter and Saks criticize the Daubert decision for opening the floodgates to dubious pseudo-scientific evidence. They say that "the current popular view is that a growing and unprecedented mass of 'junk science' is being admitted into evidence." Even Justice Blackmun, speaking for the majority in Daubert, said that at 2795 that "in order to qualify as 'scientific knowledge' an inference or assertion must be derived
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Rules Evidence, , Steffens Lease, , Supreme Court, Justice Blackmun, Judiciary Act, Ms Firestone, Cal App, Frye Steffens, People Stoll, Court Appeals, district court, rules evidence, scientific evidence, supreme court, federal rules evidence, federal rules, app 3d, cal app, cal 3d, evidentiary standard, cal app 3d, 3, 702 federal rules,
Approximate Word count = 1842
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)