R v Dosanjh.pdf
Item
Zotero
Abstract Note
Court Judgement.
Headnote Evidence --- Opinion — Experts — Qualification of expert — Miscellaneous Accused was charged with first degree murder — Crown intended to call variety of expert witnesses — Crown and defence agreed that seven experts were qualified to provide evidence and that such evidence was properly admissible — Court reviewed various curriculum vitae and reports as part of gate-keeping function — Determinations were made concerning experts Based on materials filed with respect to Crown's DNA expert motion, it was established that RF was expert to provide opinion evidence in areas of, inter alia: forensic serology (bodily fluids); and DNA analysis, including probabilistic genotyping, and STRmix in particular — Defence conceded that STRmix was not novel science and that probabilistic genotyping evidence, and STRmix in particular, satisfied criteria for admission into evidence — Counsel agreed that viva voce evidence from RF was not required to satisfy court's gate-keeping function — Court was not prepared, as yet, to allow detective GK's evidence concerning phone analysis — GK was clearly expert as submitted, but his report had variety of terms that would need to be explained to jury; counsel was to consider options for resolving this — Expert GB was to provide evidence relating to functionality (remote erasing) of phones — It appeared that GB, who had been manager of RCMP technical analysis team, had had little handson technical responsibility for number of years — It was not established, based on GB's curriculum vitae alone, that he had necessary qualifications to provide opinion set out in his report.
Headnote Evidence --- Opinion — Experts — Qualification of expert — Miscellaneous Accused was charged with first degree murder — Crown intended to call variety of expert witnesses — Crown and defence agreed that seven experts were qualified to provide evidence and that such evidence was properly admissible — Court reviewed various curriculum vitae and reports as part of gate-keeping function — Determinations were made concerning experts Based on materials filed with respect to Crown's DNA expert motion, it was established that RF was expert to provide opinion evidence in areas of, inter alia: forensic serology (bodily fluids); and DNA analysis, including probabilistic genotyping, and STRmix in particular — Defence conceded that STRmix was not novel science and that probabilistic genotyping evidence, and STRmix in particular, satisfied criteria for admission into evidence — Counsel agreed that viva voce evidence from RF was not required to satisfy court's gate-keeping function — Court was not prepared, as yet, to allow detective GK's evidence concerning phone analysis — GK was clearly expert as submitted, but his report had variety of terms that would need to be explained to jury; counsel was to consider options for resolving this — Expert GB was to provide evidence relating to functionality (remote erasing) of phones — It appeared that GB, who had been manager of RCMP technical analysis team, had had little handson technical responsibility for number of years — It was not established, based on GB's curriculum vitae alone, that he had necessary qualifications to provide opinion set out in his report.
Date
February 27, 2019
Extra
3 pages.
Publisher
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Title
R v Dosanjh.pdf
Attachment Title
R v Dosanjh.pdf
Collection
Citation
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, “R v Dosanjh.pdf,” Deobfuscating State Surveillance, accessed November 21, 2024, https://surveillance.glendon.yorku.ca/items/show/871.