reliability inquiry in Arizona

2022See id. ¶ 10 (Reliability factors “include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, . . . the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.” (quoting Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 199–200 (1972)).

2016After considering the reliability factors set forth in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), the trial court concluded that Any’s identification was sufficiently reliable and denied Goudeau’s motion to preclude.

2024The State “need not disprove ‘every remote possibility of tampering’” to show the continuity of possession necessary to establish a chain of custody, State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 287 (1996) (citation omitted), and the precautions described support the superior court’s assessment of admissibility. ¶12 Fredericks further asserts that lack of evidence about policies and procedures of the out-of-state laboratory performing the drug screens, and the fact that his urine samples were unrefrigerated for some period before being tested, undermine the reliability of the test results.

2024Urinalysis reports, however, are generally deemed reliable and admissible (provided there is evidence of how the sample was collected) so long as there is “nothing to indicate that [the] report [is] inaccurate, or that the hospital testing procedures were generally unreliable.” State v. Carr, 216 Ariz. 444, 446, ¶ 5 (App. 2007) (alterations in original and citations omitted).

2015In the Eighth Circuit, “[a]n alleged error in the application of a reliable methodology should provide the basis for exclusion of the opinion only if that error negates the basis for the reliability of the principle itself.” United States v. Martinez, 3 F.3d 1191, 1198 (8th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Gipson, 383 F.3d 689, 697 (8th Cir.2004) (“[O]utright exclusion of the evidence in question is warranted only if the methodology was so altered by a deficient application as to skew the methodology itself.”).

2015In the Eighth Circuit, “[a]n alleged error in the application of a reliable methodology should provide the basis for exclusion of the opinion only if that error negates the basis for the reliability of the principle itself.” United States v. Martinez, 3 F.3d 1191, 1198 (8th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Gipson, 383 F.3d 689, 697 (8th Cir.2004) (“[O]utright exclusion of the evidence in question is warranted only if the methodology was so altered by a deficient application as to skew the methodology itself.”).

2005E.g., State v. Prasertphong, 206 Ariz. 70, 81, ¶ 35 , 75 P.3d 675, 686 (2003), vacated *25 by 541 U.S. 1039 , 124 S.Ct. 2165 , 158 L.Ed.2d 727 (2004). ¶26 The reliability analysis adopted in Roberts was recently jettisoned by the Supreme Court in Crawford .

2005E.g., State v. Prasertphong, 206 Ariz. 70, 81, ¶ 35 , 75 P.3d 675, 686 (2003), vacated *25 by 541 U.S. 1039 , 124 S.Ct. 2165 , 158 L.Ed.2d 727 (2004). ¶26 The reliability analysis adopted in Roberts was recently jettisoned by the Supreme Court in Crawford .

2004Testimony intended to demonstrate that an interview of a child victim was suggestive or otherwise inappropriate and the risks created by such questioning “represents evidence only an expert could give on matters not within the knowledge of a juror ... [and] would assist the jury directly in evaluating the weight given to the testimony.” State v. Sloan, 912 S.W.2d 592, 597 (Mo.App.1995). ¶ 25 Because Dr. Underwager’s proposed expert testimony is not the type subject to a reliability inquiry under Frye and “involves an area of expertise beyond the ken of the average layman,” Barlow, 507 S.E.2d a

2000See Shahzade v. Gregory, 923 F.Supp. 286, 287 (D.Mass.1996) (finding that the theory of repressed memory is reliable under Daubert ); Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child and Family Services, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 748-49 (Ind.1999) (concluding that, before the testimony is admitted into evidence, the court must be satisfied that the expert scientific testimony is based on reliable scientific principles); State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110 , 697 A.2d 916, 920 (1997) (concluding that repressed memories must satisfy a threshold reliability inquiry before being admitted at trial); State v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.

2000See Shahzade v. Gregory, 923 F.Supp. 286, 287 (D.Mass.1996) (finding that the theory of repressed memory is reliable under Daubert ); Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child and Family Services, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 748-49 (Ind.1999) (concluding that, before the testimony is admitted into evidence, the court must be satisfied that the expert scientific testimony is based on reliable scientific principles); State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110 , 697 A.2d 916, 920 (1997) (concluding that repressed memories must satisfy a threshold reliability inquiry before being admitted at trial); State v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.

2000See Shahzade v. Gregory, 923 F.Supp. 286, 287 (D.Mass.1996) (finding that the theory of repressed memory is reliable under Daubert ); Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child and Family Services, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 748-49 (Ind.1999) (concluding that, before the testimony is admitted into evidence, the court must be satisfied that the expert scientific testimony is based on reliable scientific principles); State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110 , 697 A.2d 916, 920 (1997) (concluding that repressed memories must satisfy a threshold reliability inquiry before being admitted at trial); State v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.

2000See Shahzade v. Gregory, 923 F.Supp. 286, 287 (D.Mass.1996) (finding that the theory of repressed memory is reliable under Daubert); Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child and Family Services, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 748-49 (Ind.1999) (concluding that, before the testimony is admitted into evidence, the court must be satisfied that the expert scientific testimony is based on reliable scientific principles); State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110 , 697 A.2d 916, 920 (1997) (concluding that repressed memories must satisfy a threshold reliability inquiry before being admitted at trial); State v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.2

2000See Shahzade v. Gregory, 923 F.Supp. 286, 287 (D.Mass.1996) (finding that the theory of repressed memory is reliable under Daubert ); Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child and Family Services, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 748-49 (Ind.1999) (concluding that, before the testimony is admitted into evidence, the court must be satisfied that the expert scientific testimony is based on reliable scientific principles); State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110 , 697 A.2d 916, 920 (1997) (concluding that repressed memories must satisfy a threshold reliability inquiry before being admitted at trial); State v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.

2000See Shahzade v. Gregory, 923 F.Supp. 286, 287 (D.Mass.1996) (finding that the theory of repressed memory is reliable under Daubert); Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child and Family Services, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 748-49 (Ind.1999) (concluding that, before the testimony is admitted into evidence, the court must be satisfied that the expert scientific testimony is based on reliable scientific principles); State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110 , 697 A.2d 916, 920 (1997) (concluding that repressed memories must satisfy a threshold reliability inquiry before being admitted at trial); State v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.2

2000See Shahzade v. Gregory, 923 F.Supp. 286, 287 (D.Mass.1996) (finding that the theory of repressed memory is reliable under Daubert ); Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child and Family Services, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 748-49 (Ind.1999) (concluding that, before the testimony is admitted into evidence, the court must be satisfied that the expert scientific testimony is based on reliable scientific principles); State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110 , 697 A.2d 916, 920 (1997) (concluding that repressed memories must satisfy a threshold reliability inquiry before being admitted at trial); State v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.

2000See Shahzade v. Gregory, 923 F.Supp. 286, 287 (D.Mass.1996) (finding that the theory of repressed memory is reliable under Daubert); Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child and Family Services, Inc., 718 N.E.2d 738, 748-49 (Ind.1999) (concluding that, before the testimony is admitted into evidence, the court must be satisfied that the expert scientific testimony is based on reliable scientific principles); State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110 , 697 A.2d 916, 920 (1997) (concluding that repressed memories must satisfy a threshold reliability inquiry before being admitted at trial); State v. Quattrocchi, 681 A.2

1994State v. Moreno, 173 Ariz. 471, 472 , 844 P.2d 638, 639 (App.1992).

1994State v. Moreno, 173 Ariz. 471, 472 , 844 P.2d 638, 639 (App.1992).

1987In State v. Robles, 135 Ariz. 92, 94-95 , 659 P.2d 645, 647-48 (1983), we noted that some courts have approached this reliability inquiry by comparing the evidence under scrutiny with each of the specific exceptions set out in Rules 803 and 804.

1987In State v. Robles, 135 Ariz. 92, 94-95 , 659 P.2d 645, 647-48 (1983), we noted that some courts have approached this reliability inquiry by comparing the evidence under scrutiny with each of the specific exceptions set out in Rules 803 and 804.