Analysis of Facts Using the IRAC Method - Essay Example

Name Instructor’s Name Course Date Analysis of Facts Using the IRAC Method James Hebshie was convicted of arson and mail fraud in the month of June 2015 for a fire that happened in October 2012 in a commercial building in West Haven, Connecticut. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and still maintains his innocence in the matter. He exhausted his appeals and later filled for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant in regards to the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. This paper discusses the case using the IRAC method which discusses the issue presented, the rule of law that the court is attempting to decide. An analysis connecting the case with the applicable law and finally the conclusion. Question 1 a Issue The issue presented is the lack of proper determination of the cause and origin of the fire in the building where Hebshie owned a convenience store that sold newspapers and lottery tickets on 295 Beach Street. Looking at Lieutenant Todd Myers as a witness the case presented includes his observations during his entry into the building where the fire had happened and also his interpretation of the observations made with a thermal imaging camera that was brought in by another company of firefighters after the fire was thought to have been extinguished. He admitted visibility was poor but was not sure what the meaning of hotspots was. Rule The trial counsel in this case erred in failing to ask for a daubert hearing for Myers since he was a technical witness and had training as a fire fighter. The daubert hearing would have helped to find out if his technical skills were enough to be able to interpret the thermal imaging camera images where it was thought vision was blurry due to smoke when the pictures were taken. Rule 702 would have applied where persons with technical, scientific or other specialized knowledge that is acquired by training, skill experience or by education may testify by supplying their opinion which would help the trier comprehend the evidence or establish a fact (Kumho tire co .vs. Carmichael). Application In this case Myers was a trained firefighter and his testimony could form part of an opinion, however it was up to the judge to call a preliminary hearing to find out if the testimonies proposed had used scientific methodology under rule 104(a) and whether the methods were reliable. In conclusion they would have been found to be unreliable pictures because the hotspots depended on what you shone the camera towards. Question 1b Issue Detective David Domingos’ job was to find the cause an origin of the fire as he led the fire investigative unit. The trial counsel erred in not calling a daubert hearing for his testimony since he was an expert trained to work as a fire investigator. The issue is that he testified in regards to the origin of the fire but was not sure of the methods he used in determining the origin with the observations of ‘V’ shaped burn patterns in places he thought the fire had started and also the use of a canine detector to find out if an accelerant had been used to start the fire. Rule. The use of a daubert hearing would have used rule 104(a) where the judge would have made a preliminary hearing to determine whether the testimonies proposed used scientific methodology that would allow for them to be employed to the facts of the case. Application. He did not apply the scientific methods fully and instructed the canine handler to collect samples on only one area on the scene of the fire not putting into consideration that initiatives to put out the fire could have spread other products with accelerants to different parts of the store. He admitted during his testimony that the’V’ shaped patterns could be caused by other factors not related to the origin of the fire and agreed the ‘V’ had not been distinct. He concluded that the fire had started on the left hand side of the wall in Hebshie’s store and never bothered to go into the basement. Testimonies from witnesses also talked of the smell of “burnt toast” which indicates that there might have been an electrical fault and disregarded that too. Mr. Domingos did not substantiate his conclusions by the use of scientific or technical findings that could meet the criteria for relevancy and reliability. Question 1c. Issue. In regards to Sergeant Timothy Lynch, trial counsel did not err in not requesting a Daubert hearing because Lynch was only a dog handler and was following the instructions of the principal fire investigator who gave him the orders on where to direct the dog and what spot to collect the sample from. The issue is that he only collected one sample and none for comparisons and only took the dog to one spot. In this case his methods were not scientific and could not be relied upon since the dog was only taken to places where it was safe and no harm could reach him. Rule. Federal rule 702 would have applied to Lynch which states that where there is knowledge of scientific, technical or specialized nature available and will assist the trier to understand the facts, a witness who is qualified by skill experience, training, expert by knowledge o education may testify by providing an opinion. Application. Lynch qualified as an expert and as such his testimony would have been used but we find that he his methods of collecting evidence did not follow the right application whereby he collected only one sample of an accelerant in the store hence his facts were not sufficient and the principles were not applied correctly under the federal rule of evidence. His evidence could not be relied upon under the requirements of the Daubert standard. Question 1d. Issue Trial counsel erred in not requesting for a Daubert hearing for lab technician Stanley Drugan who only got one sample and nothing to compare it with and hence only identified the sample as light petroleum distillate. Rule Under federal rule 702, Stanley qualified as an expert witness by knowledge and also by skill and experience. The federal rule of evidence also required that his testimony be based on sufficient data and facts. The testimony should have been the product of reliable principles and methods and he should have applied the principles to the facts of the case. Application. Seeing as he was a trained lab technician his testimony and use of his skills should have been reliable in court to be able to help determine a fact but we find that he did not use a reliable method of comparison while testing the samples. The hearing would have helped prove that his testimony could not be applied to the facts of the case. This is because there were many other products in the store that could have accelerants in them but he had nothing to compare the sample with. Question 2. Trial counsel would be correct in not requesting a Daubert hearing for Todd Myers because he was not trained in determining the cause and origin of the fire but rather as a fire fighter. His work was to put out fires and his testimony showed that he was not an expert in matters relating to fire investigations. His testimony would not have been reliable in determining the cause and origin of the fire. Not requesting a hearing for detective Domingos would have been right because his evidence was not reliable and conclusive in terms of the samples collected with nothing to compare them with and also the fact that the ‘v’ shaped patterns could have had nothing to do with the origin of the fire. Sergeant Timothy’s testimony was not conclusive because the dog was only guided to one spot and he was never instructed to take further samples for comparison. His experience was in handling dogs and taking samples was not routine for him so there was would be no need for a hearing since his evidence was not reliable. Lab technician Stanley Drugan would have needed no Daubert hearing because he did not use conclusive scientific methodology which required the comparison of samples taken from the store to determine what kind of an accelerant it was that they had collected in light f the fact that many items being sold in the store contained accelerant. His evidence would have been unreliable in court according to rule 104(a) (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc). Question 3. The prosecution’s theory of arson was based on the fact that Hebshie started the fire since he wanted money to pay for the $5000 he owed to the lottery officials. He had tried to sell the store the previous week to no avail and prosecution claimed that gave him grounds to start the fire so he could recover money from an insurance policy he had taken on the store. Prosecution then needed to prove that he had committed the crime and did o by determining the cause and origin of the fire by the use of a fire investigator and an accelerant detection dog handled by Sergeant Timothy. The prosecution claimed that Hebshie had started the fire in the back wall of his store near the basement so it would look like the fire was accidental. They claimed he had used an accelerant and brought in the dog to detect the place where the accelerant had been poured and never took any more samples to compare with (Bank et al 21). It could be assumed that the prosecution thought the evidence collected and the testimony of the dog handler would be enough to put Hebshie in prison. When the defendant’s council did not raise any questions in regards to the lack of a second sample for comparison and the fact that the dog was not directed anywhere else in the store the court asked questions just to be sure the defendants had no challenge in the situation. In this case the court was asking if the defendants would have liked to raise hearings to counter the use of the evidence by the use of the Daubert standard but the defense made no challenge. In this case it was assumed that all evidence and testimonies presented were reliable and could help in determining the fact whether Hebshie had actually started the fire intentionally. It was also assumed the experts had used scientific methods that could support the facts of the case. The judge presiding over the case made no attempt to carry out his gatekeeping obligation which applied not only to testimonies based on scientific knowledge but also on those based on technical and other knowledge that is specialized (Kumho tire co.vs. Carmichael). The court considered the factor that the testimonies had been made by experts and that they would help in determination of the facts but made no attempts to figure out if the knowledge provided by these four experts was the product of principles and methods that can be relied upon and whether they could be applied to the facts of the case. The fact that the defense made no challenges in regards to the samples collected showed the court that they agreed with the evidence and testimonies that had been provided by the prosecution. Question 4. In regards to the scientific testimony on arson trial counsel should have challenged the lack of extra samples that were needed for comparison and also requested for Daubert hearings for the witnesses to help ascertain whether the testimonies presented had been subject to testing, peer reviews, error rates and acceptability. The hearing would have helped them determine whether the testimony was based on sufficient data such as that collected by way of samples at the store, the thermal images and also the visibility of the ‘v’ shaped burn patterns. It would have also helped them find out if the testimonies had been products of reliable principles and methods and whether the methods could be applied to the facts of the case. Trial counsel should have challenged the fact that the accelerant detection dog was only used at a single point in the store and nowhere else and also the fact that the fire investigator never went into the basement and also disregarded the witnesses’ claims of a burnt toast smell which could have indicated an electrical fault. There was the use of the theory of ‘v’ shaped patterns to point out the point of origin of the fire but the point was not scientifically proven since the patterns could be caused by other factors not relating to the origin of the fire but rather where the fire had made a path. The trial counsel should have also taken into consideration the testimony of Myers the firefighter who made the first entry and his reports of an orange glow at the back of the convenience store which turned out to be more fire. Works cited. Case Laws Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1999). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993). Books. Bank, Steven C., and Ira K. Packer. "Expert witness testimony: Law, ethics, and practice." Forensic psychology: Emerging topics and expanding roles 4 (2007): 21-4. Read More

Application In this case Myers was a trained firefighter and his testimony could form part of an opinion, however it was up to the judge to call a preliminary hearing to find out if the testimonies proposed had used scientific methodology under rule 104(a) and whether the methods were reliable. In conclusion they would have been found to be unreliable pictures because the hotspots depended on what you shone the camera towards. Question 1b Issue Detective David Domingos’ job was to find the cause an origin of the fire as he led the fire investigative unit.

The trial counsel erred in not calling a daubert hearing for his testimony since he was an expert trained to work as a fire investigator. The issue is that he testified in regards to the origin of the fire but was not sure of the methods he used in determining the origin with the observations of ‘V’ shaped burn patterns in places he thought the fire had started and also the use of a canine detector to find out if an accelerant had been used to start the fire. Rule. The use of a daubert hearing would have used rule 104(a) where the judge would have made a preliminary hearing to determine whether the testimonies proposed used scientific methodology that would allow for them to be employed to the facts of the case.

Application. He did not apply the scientific methods fully and instructed the canine handler to collect samples on only one area on the scene of the fire not putting into consideration that initiatives to put out the fire could have spread other products with accelerants to different parts of the store. He admitted during his testimony that the’V’ shaped patterns could be caused by other factors not related to the origin of the fire and agreed the ‘V’ had not been distinct. He concluded that the fire had started on the left hand side of the wall in Hebshie’s store and never bothered to go into the basement.

Testimonies from witnesses also talked of the smell of “burnt toast” which indicates that there might have been an electrical fault and disregarded that too. Mr. Domingos did not substantiate his conclusions by the use of scientific or technical findings that could meet the criteria for relevancy and reliability. Question 1c. Issue. In regards to Sergeant Timothy Lynch, trial counsel did not err in not requesting a Daubert hearing because Lynch was only a dog handler and was following the instructions of the principal fire investigator who gave him the orders on where to direct the dog and what spot to collect the sample from.

The issue is that he only collected one sample and none for comparisons and only took the dog to one spot. In this case his methods were not scientific and could not be relied upon since the dog was only taken to places where it was safe and no harm could reach him. Rule. Federal rule 702 would have applied to Lynch which states that where there is knowledge of scientific, technical or specialized nature available and will assist the trier to understand the facts, a witness who is qualified by skill experience, training, expert by knowledge o education may testify by providing an opinion.

Application. Lynch qualified as an expert and as such his testimony would have been used but we find that he his methods of collecting evidence did not follow the right application whereby he collected only one sample of an accelerant in the store hence his facts were not sufficient and the principles were not applied correctly under the federal rule of evidence. His evidence could not be relied upon under the requirements of the Daubert standard. Question 1d. Issue Trial counsel erred in not requesting for a Daubert hearing for lab technician Stanley Drugan who only got one sample and nothing to compare it with and hence only identified the sample as light petroleum distillate.

Rule Under federal rule 702, Stanley qualified as an expert witness by knowledge and also by skill and experience. The federal rule of evidence also required that his testimony be based on sufficient data and facts.

Read More