Forensic Evidence Admissibility - Case Study Example

Forensic Evidence Admissibility Grade (Feb. 9th, Forensic Evidence Admissibility The case v. Okey, 321 Or 285, 899 P2d 663 [1995] is a case that is concerned with the aspect of admissibility of forensic evidence, in particular the legal basis for the admissibility of Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test evidence in a case of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) (Page, Taylor & Blenkin, 2011). Facts of the case The case involves an incidence that occurred on July 8, 1990, where an Oregon State Police officer saw a drunken man leaving a social function at around half-an-hour past midnight, and proceeded to where his pick-up was parked and drove away. In the course of his observation, the Oregon Trooper Gregory observed that the man, the defendant in this case, was struggling while walking and had no stability at all (Cwik & North, 2003). The Oregon officer discovered that the defendant drove away instantly and made wide turns, and did not react immediately to a green traffic light. This prompted the Oregon officer to stop the defendant, and on stopping him, the officer noticed that the defendant smelled of alcohol (Cwik & North, 2003). In addition the officer saw several bottles of beer on the back of the pick-up truck the defendant was driving, and when the officer asked for his driving license, the defendant had a problem producing it, and could not even trace his car registration (Cwik & North, 2003). On enquiring regarding the state of the defendant, the defendant confessed to have consumed between 4 to 6 bottles of beer within the past 3 hours. With this confirmation, the officer asked the defendant to perform a series of field sobriety tests. The tests the defendant was required to perform was the finger-to-nose test, one-leg stand test, the finger count test and eventually the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test (Cwik & North, 2003). The officer found that the defendant failed some of the field sobriety tests, and the HGN test in particular. This prompted the officer to arrest the defendant for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), for eventual arraigning in court. In court, the Oregon State officer testified that the defendant’s eyes displayed a nystagmus at 40 degrees in both eyes, had jerky pursuit of objects applied in HGN test, and displayed endpoint nystagmus in his eyes (Cwik & North, 2003). The officer also testified that after arrest, the defendant refused to obey the request of submitting to a breath test, to aid in the determination of the content of alcohol in his blood (BAC) (Cwik & North, 2003). The state of Oregon requested for a pre-trial omnibus, during which it was held that the HGN test evidence was admissible in court to prove that the defendant was driving while under the influence of intoxicants, and to prove that the blood alcohol content for defendant was 0.8% or more (Cwik & North, 2003). On the other hand, the defendant held that the HGN test evidence did not meet the requirements of the standards for admissibility of scientific evidence, and thus the evidence could not be used as a scientific evidence to prosecute the case (Cwik & North, 2003). Argument This discussion argues against the admissibility of the scientific evidence presented in this case. This is because: First, despite the fact that HGN test passes as a scientific evidence test that may be of substantial probative value, it is limited by the fact that it cannot be applied on its own, as conclusive scientific evidence in a court of law to prove the involvement of an individual in driving under the influence of intoxicants, since it cannot scientifically prove the level of intoxication of the individual (Page, Taylor & Blenkin, 2011). Therefore, the admissibility of the HGN test evidence as scientific evidence to prove that the defendant’s level of intoxication by alcohol was 0.8% or more was erratic, since the HGN test cannot practially prove the amount of alcohol that an individual has consumed. The HGN test evidence would have been admissible in court, only for the sole purpose of producing evidence that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicants when he was driving (Raum, 2010). This would then mean that further scientific evidence could be required by the court to deduce the actual amount of alcohol that the individual had consumed, since the individual could have been found to be driving under the influence of intoxicants, but the amount of the alcohol he had consumed could be within the range that is allowed by the law (Edmond & Roach, 2011). This means that in such a case, the defendant could be wrongly charged by the court, because of using evidence that is not scientifically efficient. Therefore, for the judge in this case is required to admit the HGN test evidence as scientific evidence to prove that the defendant was involved in drunken driving, but require that further scientific evidence be produced, to prove that the amount of the alcohol that the defendant had consumed was beyond the levels allowed by the law. Secondly, the admissibility of the HGN test evidence by the court as scientific evidence sufficient for prosecuting the case was wrong, considering that it is required by the law that for any evidence to pass as scientific evidence admissible in a court of law, the evidence must have satisfied the standards for admissibility of scientific evidence (Page, Taylor & Blenkin, 2011). In this case, the HGN test evidence does not seem to have satisfied the required standards, since it must have satisfied among other things, the techniques generally accepted in the field, the stature of the expert’s qualifications, the use which has been made of the technique, the potential rate of error statement, as well as the extent of the subjective interpretation by the expert (Raum, 2010). While the list of these factors is not exclusive, it is required that the courts should apply and test the scientific evidence presented for each of the above standards, so that the actual probative value of the evidence can be adduced, and thus determined whether it is sufficient to meet the threshold for use to prosecute the case before the court (Edmond & Roach, 2011). The need for the assessment of the evidence in terms of each of the above requirements is to ensure that any aspect of the scientific evidence that may result to bias, prejudice or unfairness is not admissible for prosecuting the case before a court. In this case, the HGN test evidence presented by the Oregon state police officer may have passed the requirement for the techniques generally accepted in the field, considering that HGN is legally recognized as one of the field sobriety test technique for alcohol intoxication (Page, Taylor & Blenkin, 2011). However, the major problem associated with the admissibility of this test evidence as sufficient scientific evidence for the prosecution of the case is that; the stature of the expert’s qualifications was not conclusively assessed, meaning that it is not clear whether the officer administering this test was fully qualified to administer such a test. Under circumstances where the officer was not well qualified to administer this test of intoxication, the evidence adduced in the officer’s report could be misleading (Raum, 2010). This therefore places the suitability of the evidence presented before the court into question, requiring that the officer should first be assessed for his qualification to administer the test method, before the evidence is accepted by the court. Further, the standards for admissibility of scientific evidence requires that the rate of error involved in the assessment of the levels of intoxication of an individual should be stated, so that the scientific evidence can therefore be considered as admissible (Edmond & Roach, 2011). However, in this case, there was no statement in relation to the rate of error involved in the assessment, because the technique applied was observatory, as opposed to the application of a scientific or mathematical principle, which would have resulted to the provision of a statement indicating the rate of error that was involved in the assessment, which is necessary in the determination of the validity of the scientific evidence as sufficient for use to prosecute a case (Page, Taylor & Blenkin, 2011). Therefore, the lack of a well assessed and stated margin of error means that the evidence presented could be erratic, and thus the prosecution of the case based on such evidence would amount to unfairness on the defendant. Nevertheless, the most important aspect in relation to the standard requirements for admissibility of scientific evidence is the issue of the extent of subjective interpretation by the expert (Edmond & Roach, 2011). Previous cases have observed that the probative value of HGN test evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfairness arising from the fact that the method is highly prone to the subjective biasness of the expert (Raum, 2010). The subjective bias can render the HGN test evidence less impartial, since it can entail the officer introducing bias into the results, and thus reporting findings that were not the actual results of the tests, for the purpose of incriminating the defendant. Thus, for the purpose of authenticity and integrity of the results, it is required that further scientific methods should be applied, which are not prone to bias, and which produces results and thus findings that are credible and free from manipulation (Page, Taylor & Blenkin, 2011). The concept of constitutional constraint is a factor that prohibits the admissibility of the HGN test evidence as scientific evidence to prosecute the case before the court. This is because, the law requires that the constitution should rein supreme over any other legal policy provision, including the provisions of the laws formulated by the states (Edmond & Roach, 2011). In this case, the Oregon State laws have made a provision for the admissibility of HGN test as scientific evidence in cases of driving under the influence of intoxicants, which can attest to the fact that the driver was driving under the influence of alcohol. Secondly, the state has also made a provision that the HGN test evidence can be used to determine the levels of alcohol consumption by an individual as either less or more than the 0.8 mark level (Raum, 2010). Nevertheless, the constitutional provisions, through various case laws, exempts the HGN test evidence from the list of the scientific methods that can be applied to determine the level of alcohol consumption by an individual, requiring that the HGN test should only be applied towards providing testimony that the individual arrested was under the influence of alcohol, while the levels of blood Alcohol content should be determined through alternative and more scientific methods (Page, Taylor & Blenkin, 2011). Therefore, since there is a constitutional constraint on the application of the laws formulated by the Oregon State in regards to the evidentiary use of HGN tests, the constitutional provision must take preference, thus rendering the HGN test evidence inadmissible for the prosecution of the case. References Cwik, C. H. & North, J. L. (2003). Scientific evidence review: Admissibility and use of expert evidence in the courtroom. Chicago, Ill.: Section of Science and Technology Law, American Bar Association. 431 Edmond, G., & Roach, K. (2011). A contextual approach to the admissibility of the states forensic science and medical evidence. University Of Toronto Law Journal, 61(3), 343-409. Page, M., Taylor, J., & Blenkin, M. (2011). Forensic Identification Science Evidence since Daubert: Part II-Judicial Reasoning in Decisions to Exclude Forensic Identification Evidence on Grounds of Reliability. Journal of Forensic Sciences (Wiley-Blackwell), 56(4), 913-917. Raum, B. A. (2010). A short primer on the admissibility of forensic science evidence in Tennessee: a checklist. Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy, 6(2), 161-188. State v. Okey, 321 Or 285, 899 P2d 663 [1995] Read More