And in some states, as I understand things, the rules of evidence may vary, or may have varied, between civil and criminal cases.
In particular, Daubert v. Merrell Dow applied in civil cases in some states, while Frye was retained for criminal trials. I have not looked at recent developments.
That one is of particular importance to the handloads issue, and to the admissibility of what was once called forensic scientific trace evidence.
More on the applicability of rules over different kinds of cases: The Daubert v. Merrell Dow rulings stemmed from civil trials involving pharmaceuticals, but they would apply to an insurance case involving tire compounds, or to the admissibility of gunshot residue test results. I took a lengthy course on the subject a number of years ago--because, of all things, of the way the rulings would pertain to the admissibility of computer-generated financial records in complying with what is commonly called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act! Nothing whatsoever to do with pharmaceuticals, but it probably did lead to increased consumption of Excedrin!
In particular, Daubert v. Merrell Dow applied in civil cases in some states, while Frye was retained for criminal trials. I have not looked at recent developments.
That one is of particular importance to the handloads issue, and to the admissibility of what was once called forensic scientific trace evidence.
More on the applicability of rules over different kinds of cases: The Daubert v. Merrell Dow rulings stemmed from civil trials involving pharmaceuticals, but they would apply to an insurance case involving tire compounds, or to the admissibility of gunshot residue test results. I took a lengthy course on the subject a number of years ago--because, of all things, of the way the rulings would pertain to the admissibility of computer-generated financial records in complying with what is commonly called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act! Nothing whatsoever to do with pharmaceuticals, but it probably did lead to increased consumption of Excedrin!
