United States v. Glynn
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
578 F. Supp. 2d 567 (2008)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Chaz Glynn (defendant) was charged with murder. At trial, the prosecution (plaintiff) called Detective James Valenti, a ballistics expert. Valenti testified “to a reasonable degree of ballistic certainty” that a bullet and casings involved in the crimes came from Glynn’s gun. Glynn challenged this testimony, arguing that the methodology in the field of ballistics was not sufficiently reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The district court held a Daubert hearing and ruled that Valenti was prohibited from tying a specific degree of certainty to his opinion testimony. The court ruled, however, that Valenti could opine that it was more likely than not that the bullet and casings came from Glynn’s gun. The jury announced a deadlock, and the district court declared a mistrial. The district court then issued this order announcing that the evidentiary rulings in the retrial would be largely the same as they were in the initial trial. The court set forth its reasoning for limiting Valenti’s ballistics testimony.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rakoff, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.