Court Opinion

ID: 9629810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:50:11.763286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:24.935064
License: Public Domain

LANE, Judge,
specially concurring.
Prior to the adoption of the evidence code and Datibert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) the courts of Oklahoma were content to allow the scientific community determine the scientific reliability of new scientific theories.1 Today, we shift that responsibility to the trial judge and this Court when criminal matters are being tried, a move that is legally valid but may be ill-advised from a practical standpoint.
By making the judge the “gatekeeper” for the admission of scientific evidence, we are requiring him and not the relevant scientific community to determine if a theory is scientifically valid. This opinion does not eliminate the element of acceptance of the scientific community from the consideration, but it adds other factors that are a part of the testing procedures used by the scientific community such as whether the theory has been tested and can it be tested; has it been subject to peer review and publication; and, what is the known or potential rate of error. During the consideration of this ease we dealt with such terms as “product rule”, “linkage disequilibrium”, “Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium”, “population substructure”, “ceiling principle”, “frequency calculation”, “deoxyribonucleic acid”, “polymorphic sequence” and “polymorphisms”. Even with a dictionary open at my side I felt completely inadequate to interpret the scientific reliability of the theory because of my lack of proper skill and training. Heaven help us if a case comes along that relies on sub-atomic physics.
The legal analysis used by the majority is correct. Since my concern is with the practical application of the results, I recommend that the legislature and the practicing members of the bar seriously consider what we have done and determine if new legislation is needed.

. The repetitive use of the word "scientific" is intentional.