Daubert & Motions for New Trial
A visitor to the site from Hawaii has inquired whether, in a motion for new trial based on newly discovered scientific evidence, the court must convene a hearing to determine whether the newly discovered evidence would be admissible under Daubert, Frye, or the local evidentiary regime du jour. The visitor's case involves a new trial motion in a state court criminal case, but insights from all contexts would undoubtedly be welcome.
It seems intuitive that some inquiry should be made. Why afford a new trial, after all, if the evidence will be inadmissible as a matter of law? The harder question is what the standard should be. Should it suffice that the evidence could be admitted under a court's sound discretion? That is, should a discretionary decision whether to admit it be left for the new trial court? Or should the first court, hearing the new trial motion, exercise whatever discretion it would normally have to admit or exclude the evidence? If the latter, and if the court grants the motion for new trial, should the trial court then be at liberty to revisit the discretionary decision? Or should it be stuck with the first court's decision?
This is making our brain hurt. But there must be some reasonable answer. Comment is invited.
It seems intuitive that some inquiry should be made. Why afford a new trial, after all, if the evidence will be inadmissible as a matter of law? The harder question is what the standard should be. Should it suffice that the evidence could be admitted under a court's sound discretion? That is, should a discretionary decision whether to admit it be left for the new trial court? Or should the first court, hearing the new trial motion, exercise whatever discretion it would normally have to admit or exclude the evidence? If the latter, and if the court grants the motion for new trial, should the trial court then be at liberty to revisit the discretionary decision? Or should it be stuck with the first court's decision?
This is making our brain hurt. But there must be some reasonable answer. Comment is invited.
1 Comments:
Thank you for your interest and reply on this issue. To date, despite inquiries to top criminal defense attorneys and various Innocence Project talking heads, no one has been able to do much of anything but scratch their heads in reply. It seems odd to me that this issue has not been directly addressed by any state or federal court (that I can find).
Our memo on this topic is due to the Court tomorrow. The general thrust of our argument in the absence of any definitive case law is that it is in the hearing judge's discretion to decide to what degree he needs to make an admissibility determination in order to satisfy himself to the extent required to make a finding of whether or not the evidence would "probably change the result of a later trial" (the fourth prong of "McNulty", our state's standard re: motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence).
In short, while I don't have any case law to back me up, I don't think the judge in an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a new trial needs to do a full-blown Frye/Daubert analysis. There should be (if it hasnt already been articulated) a different (lower) standard of review re: admissibility for a judge to determine whether newly discovered evidence "probably would change the result" of a new trial.
Post a Comment
<< Home