Legal Opinion
United States v. Prime
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided September 20, 2002No. CR01-0310LPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
LASNIK, District Judge.
On October 9, 2001, Michael S. Prime (“Prime”) moved in limine to exclude expert testimony on handwriting identification at his trial or, in the alternative, for a hearing to determine the admissibility of such evidence pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). Prime’s motion brought into issue the testimony of Kathleen Storer (“Storer”), a forensic document examiner (“FDE” or…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. PrimeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- United States v. Michael Stefan PrimeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- United States v. PrimeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005