Very important holding (though error not prejudicial): Hearsay relied upon by an expert in reaching his opinion does implicate the confrontation clause. Thank you.
Same case; a favorable but not so favorable holding: trial court erred under 352 in ruling that a defense gang expert could not testify. Unfortunately, and stupidly, the court rejected the federal 6th amendment challenge because the evidence was not “crucial” to the defense case which included gang enhancements. WTF?! Super interesting expert. She was going to testify about scientific methods and how the gang expert’s testimony was essentially bullshit. For example, the opinions are based on subjective interpretations which is poo-pooed in science. Also, the evidence is unreliable because of a “base rate” problem. Essentially there are very few gang members so extrapolating that someone is a gang member from a thing many people would do (e.g. wear red) is unreliable. #brilliant. The expert was Dr. Deborah Davis if you want to hire her. The error was also not prejudicial (gang enhancements were not found true by the jury; spillover wasn’t there because they hung on one of two murder charges).
p.s. there is another case that might be interesting that came out today. look for a summary tomorrow.
The post Good opinion on gang expert testimony today appeared first on juicejusticeandcorgis.