Wk 2 Reflection
After reviewing the PBS Frontline video(https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/real-csi/) do you believe the standards for admissibility of expert testimony, and testimony regarding the results of tests and analyses conducted of physical evidence espoused in the Frye and Daubert decisions are adequate to protect a defendant’s rights?
Be sure to briefly explain the Frye and Daubert standards and support why, or why not, you feel the standards are adequate.
Also, respond to the following questions/issues:
Should jurors be warned of the potential for bias or the potential for analyst error?
Should national standards for comparisons not firmly founded in science, i.e. fingerprints, questioned documents, toolmarks, etc., be established?
Should jurors be instructed to give greater weight to tests and comparisons with greater scientific bases (DNA v. fingerprint comparison)?