Opinion ID: 4471471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: facts

Text: The State filed a motion in limine arguing Dr. Young's methods were unique, not generally accepted in the scientific community, and not the result of reliable principles and methods. Additionally, he had not reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Dr. Young testified at the hearing on the motion that he had created what he alternately called the inferential test or Young's postulate. He further testified he has held himself out as an expert and used his inferential test to testify for defense attorneys challenging findings of a pathologist in cases involving abusive head trauma. Dr. Young applied his test to conclude a State witness, pediatrician Dr. Frazier, could not surmise child abuse solely from physical evidence. Young also applied his test to conclude that J.S.'s death did not involve trauma but rather his inability to breathe properly on several occasions. 24 Young admitted that no thought leaders in the forensic pathology field have adopted the inferential test, that no learned treatise in the field has adopted it, and that no model protocol has been created in the field based on it. The hearing record reveals Young admitted no published articles comment on his inferential test, it has no peer reviewed commentaries, and the thought leaders in his profession have refused to consider the topics he has covered. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court held Dr. Young was clearly qualified to testify based on his medical degree and specialization in forensic pathology. However, regarding his analysis of this case, the court observed that the inferential test Young created and applied here had not been peer-reviewed. The court specifically cited Dr. Young's admission that all of his testimony and opinions in this case were based on his inferential test. Ultimately, the district court granted the motion excluding Dr. Young's testimony, calling the test junk science. Two weeks later, the court completed a written journal entry summarizing its conclusions and decision to disqualify Dr. Young. In it the court found that in one of Young's publications, he stated, I will prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created 'the heavens and the earth' in six literal days. And there Young additionally explained that his test also could be used to prove that the theory of evolution has no merit.