People v. Bowman

2014 WL 718416 (2014)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

People v. Bowman

California Court of Appeal
2014 WL 718416 (2014)

Facts

James Bowman (defendant) was tried for murder. Dr. Arthur Kowell, a neurologist, examined Bowman prior to trial. This examination included a positron-emission tomography (PET) scan, which revealed decreased functioning of the temporal lobes of Bowman’s brain. Kowell stated that this result was indicative of hypometabolism, a condition consistent with decreased impulse control. However, Kowell could not diagnose a disorder based on this information. Kowell also acknowledged that he knew of no literature indicating general scientific acceptance of PET scans as a means of inferring diagnoses, that hypometabolism did not guarantee decreased impulse control, that the results of a PET scan could not be extrapolated to days before or after the scan was administered, and that factors such as depression and medication also affected temporal-lobe activity. The trial judge found that PET-scan evidence was too scientifically uncertain to be admitted under California’s modified version of the Frye standard. Bowman was found guilty. Bowman appealed, arguing in part that the PET-scan results should have been admitted. The California Court of Appeal granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Klein, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership