Legal Opinion
Matthews v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Decided February 25, 2021No. 3280/18PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Kirk Matthews v. State of Maryland, Case No. 3280, September Term 2018. Opinion by Nazarian, J. EXPERT WITNESSES – RULE 5-702(3) – ANALYTICAL GAP UNBRIDGED Expert photogrammetry and reverse photogrammetry projection testimony was unreliable, and failed to satisfy Maryland Rule 5-702(3), where the expert’s seemingly precise calculation of the suspect’s height failed to account for missing and potentially significant input variables. As a result, the analytical gap between the data available for reverse photogrammetry projections and the conclusion the expert offered to the jury remained…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- Delaware v. FenstererSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Reed v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Power CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. MatthewsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2022
- Katz, Abosch, etc., P.A. v. Parkway NeuroscienceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2023
- Katz, Abosch, etc., P.A. v. Parkway NeuroscienceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2023
- State v. MatthewsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2022
- State v. MatthewsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2022
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.