Drug Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit
Some jurisdictions have Frye97 hearings instead of Daubert hearings. In these hearings, the “general acceptance” test looks to the scientific community to determine whether the evidence in question has a valid, scientific basis. Despite the different frameworks, the outcome of these hearings is unlikely to vary substantially. The bottom line is that it is important to adequately scrutinize the scientific evidence presented. 3. Consider the state official’s expertise Of central importance is whether the jurisdiction has a coroner, a medical examiner (ME), or a mixed Medical Examiner/Coroner (ME/C) system. Coroners and MEs differ significantly in their qualifications and in the nature of their roles.98 A medical examiner is a physician who is appointed to determine cause and manner of death. Notably, the medical examiner also determines whether an autopsy should be conducted.99 A medical examiner is a forensic pathologist who has graduated from
body. There was no autopsy. Ira P. Robbins, A Deadly Pair: Conflicts of Interest Between Death Investigators and Prosecutors, 79 Ohio St. L. J. 902, 903 (2018) [hereinafter Robbins, A Deadly Pair]. 97
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
98
For more on comparisons between coroners and medical examiners, including subconscious and conscious bias in these roles, see Beety, The Overdose/Homicide Epidemic. 99
See Nat’l Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the U.S.: A Path Forward 248 (Nat’l Acad. Press 2009), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf [hereinafter Nat’l Research Council, A Path Forward].
Disclaimer: All content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice
32
