Can someone dumb down the Andrews v. Florida, 1988 case for me?

I'm reading over the full case but i want maybe one of y'all will say something i missed or didn't understand.

It's about the first time DNA was used in court.

What are the key points and facts in your eyes?

2 Answers

  • 7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    "Somewhere in the twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while the courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs."

    "and suddenly twenty thousand feet were raised, as though they belonged to one man"

    "specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion"

    "Instantly we heard a pattering of feet, and from out of the masses of warriors strange and awful figures appeared running towards us. As they drew near we saw that these were women, most of them aged, for their white hair, ornamented with small bladders taken from fish, streamed out behind them. Their faces were painted in stripes of white and yellow; down their backs hung snake-skins, and round their waists rattled circlets of human bones, while each held a small forked wand in her shrivelled hand. In all there were ten of them. When they arrived in front of us they halted, and one of them, pointing with her wand towards the crouching figure of Gagool, cried out-- 'Mother, old mother, we are here.' '_Good! good! good!_" answered that aged Iniquity. "Are your eyes keen, _Isanusis_ [witch doctresses], ye seers in dark places?"

    "The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling the test results admissible in this case"

    "Almost before the words were uttered the horrible dead was done. One man had driven his spear into the victim's heart, and to make assurance double sure, the other had dashed out his brains with a great club."

    "Finding no error, the convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED"

    "'_One_,' counted Twala the king, just like a black Madame Defarge, as Good said, and the body was dragged a few paces away and stretched out. Hardly was the thing done before another poor wretch was brought up, like an ox to the slaughter."

    I think Haggard did a great job to "dumb down the Andrews v. Florida, 1988"

  • 7 years ago

    From scanning the opinion the importance of the case was that the Appeals Court granted admissibility because the court found that DNA evidence was based on reliable, scientific evidence that fell within the Florida Rules of Evidence of admissibility.

    Some of the factors I pulled were

    1. Reliability of the evidence through extensive scientific study that has been used in a number of locations

    2. The expertise of the laboratory that performed the DNA analysis. (chain of evidence)

    3. The jury's ability to understand the concept.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.