Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bateman v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 2013No. 2012-KA-00372-SCTPublished

1ConcurrenceChandler, Justice

¶ 63. I respectfully concur in part and in the result. In Anderson v. State, 62 So.3d 927 (Miss.2011), I wrote separately to express my opinion that Dr. Matherne’s fist-demonstration methodology does not meet the modified Daubert standard for admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. See Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 39 (Miss.2003) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)). As in Anderson, I believe the trial court abused its discretion by finding the fist…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Mississippi Transp. Comm'n v. McLemoreMississippi Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Anderson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Lattimer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2006

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API