Evidence Commons^™

Polygraph Admission Through Compulsory Process, Timothy J. Walsh

Akron Law Review

Polygraph evidence is included within the broad category of expert testimony, yet it is treated quite differently from other forms of expert testimony. If admissible at all for the defense, polygraph evidence almost always requires the stipulation of the prosecution for it to be admitted into court. Such a requirement vests solely, within the hands of a prosecutor, the ability to eliminate that proof which may be necessary for the defendant to effectively prove his innocence. Furthermore, in some jurisdictions a defendant cannot even place his faith in the sympathy of a prosecutor. Instead, a rule bars him from proving …

The Trial Judge As Gatekeeper For Scientific Evidence: Will Ohio Rule Of Evidence 102 Frustrate The Ohio Courts' Role Under Daubert V. Merrell Dow?, Michael Lepp, Chrisopher B. Mcneil

Akron Law Review

This article considers the role of the trial court in responding to the changes wrought by scientific innovation. Particular consideration is given to the impact likely to be realized in Ohio trial courts from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

[...]In order to appreciate the significance of Ohio Evidence Rule 102 in this context, it is helpful to first examine some of the events leading to Daubert, especially the application (and in some instances, the rejection) of Frye both in Ohio and at the federal level. Following that, this article will …

Get On Board For The Ride Of Your Life! The Ups, The Downs, The Twists, And The Turns Of The Applicability Of The "Gatekeeper" Function To Scientific And Non-Scientific Expert Evidence: Kumho'sexpansion Of Daubert, Leslie Morsek

Akron Law Review

This Comment examines the history of scientific and non-scientific expert evidence, its current status, and the future of scientific and non-scientific evidence based on recent court decisions. Part II explores the background of these issues by examining the earlier standard for admitting expert testimony, the effect of Congress’ promulgation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the influential cases in this area. Part III analyzes the importance of subjecting nonscientific expert testimony to the same rigors as scientific expert testimony. Lastly, Part IV predicts the future of expert evidence.