Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
Hemp 702 Motion Draft
A draft 702 motion to exclude expert testimony from an arresting officer identifying a substance as marijuana.
Motion to Exclude Firearm Identification Testimony of Agents Tanner and Ware
Trial court denied the motion, but initially prohibited the State from offering testimony “that the bullets in question were fired from the same weapon” because of potential for misleading the jury. However, the testimony was allowed after the trial court found the defense opened the door to the testimony during opening statements.
Motion to Exclude Firearm Identification Testimony of Agents Tanner and WareRead More
Motion to Exclude Firearm Identification Testimony, Memorandum of Law, State’s Brief in Response to Defendant’s Motion, and Order
2011 motion in limine by Richard Ramsey. Example of how to use the National Academy of Sciences report and other professional standards in a motion to exclude or suppress forensic evidence. Transcript of motion’s hearing available upon request.
Motion to Exclude Firearm Identification Testimony, Memorandum of Law, State’s Brief in Response to Defendant’s Motion, and OrderRead More
Motion to Prohibit State’s Expert from Rendering Opinion on Gun Shot Residue Testing
Motion filed by David Botchin and Mark Rabil.
Motion to Prohibit State’s Expert from Rendering Opinion on Gun Shot Residue TestingRead More
Motion to Exclude Testimony Regarding Field Sobriety Tests
Motion to exclude expert testimony based on failure to satisfy requirements of the new Rule 702 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence.
Motion to Exclude Testimony Regarding Field Sobriety TestsRead More
Order Excluding Paul Glover’s Testimony
Order granted in attorney James Davis’s case in 2013 under the new Rule of Evidence 702.
Cook County Motion to Exclude Fingerprint Identification
2018 Motion to Exclude testimony about fingerprint “identification” because it is scientifically indefensible, will overstate the probative value of fingerprint evidence and unduly prejudice the Defense, and mislead the trier of fact.
Cook County Motion to Exclude Fingerprint IdentificationRead More
State v. Rudolph
Northern District of Alabama (Daubert jurisdiction) Motion to Exclude Testimony of Forensic Fingerprint Examiner – includes a comprehensive history of what scientific validation has and has not been completed for this field. Critiques the lack of uniform standards. Critiques analysis of small or distorted latent prints. Affidavit of Simon Cole – This expert in the field of …
State v. Zajac
District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division Zajac Order – granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude fingerprint evidence. Important example of how the language used by the fingerprint examiner can be limited. Memo in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Fingerprint Evidence
Innocence Project’s amicus brief
For a copy of the Innocence Project’s amicus brief in a Frye challenge to the admissibility of bite mark evidence, email Sarah Rackley Olson.