These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Capillary electrophoresis in court: the landmark decision of the People of Tennessee versus Ware.
    Author: Marchi E, Pasacreta RJ.
    Journal: J Capillary Electrophor; 1997; 4(4):145-56. PubMed ID: 9627830.
    Abstract:
    Capillary electrophoresis is a versatile and emerging technique. In the fields of law and science, history has been made with the admissibility of CE as a method to evaluate evidence. The extremely low sample requirements, high separation efficiencies, and excellent resolution allow for quantitative techniques from extracted and amplified mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which was presented as evidence from hair shafts in the case of The People of Tennessee versus Paul Ware (Tennessee v. Ware). This paper discusses the history of the admissibility of scientific evidence. In 1993, the United States Supreme Court Justices rewrote the rules for admission of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Daubert) (509 U.S. 597). After rejecting the longstanding requirements under Frye v. United States (Frye), 293 F.1013 (1923), which focused on the conclusions obtained rather than the methodologies employed, Daubert went further in establishing a liberal policy in the FRE favoring the District Court judges to act as gatekeepers, thus admitting well-grounded scientific evidence. Later this year, the Supreme Court will once again review the issue of how the decisions reached in trial courts should be treated by reviewing courts. CE has demonstrated its ability to meet the requisite scientific standards in the court system. The CE evidence presented in Ware led to a felony conviction.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]