Not exact matches
The Court formulated a new standard for the admissibility of eye witness
testimony which, inter alia, mandated that
such testimony be
excluded if the defendant can prove — based on system and / or estimator variables — that the «probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence» (44 - 5).
Since
such a report was not submitted, the defendant argued that the opinion
testimony should be
excluded from the evidence in the case.
In turn, appellate courts since Kumho have focused on whether the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting or
excluding the
testimony and, in some cases, have examined, without focusing on the Daubert factors, whether the expert
testimony satisfied other evidentiary standards
such as whether there was an adequate factual foundation for the expert's
testimony.
Under KRE 803 (18), known as the learned treatise rule, statements from
such a document are not
excluded by the hearsay rules, even though the declarant is not available as a witness, when these statements are used in questioning an expert witness, either on direct or cross, if the statements are established as a reliable authority either by the witness, other expert
testimony, or by judicial notice.