Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Capital Defense Weekly

Criminal Law

: Capital Defense Weekly

Last week in October edition

By Karl R. Keys, Esq.

From the intro html/pdf: Leading off this case is the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opinion in  Billy Wayne Coble v. State . Scott Henson at Grits for Breakfast narrows in the core of the opinion:  “‘[f]orensic psychiatry is certainly a science; as Dr. Coons stated, it is practiced solely by those with a medical degree. It may be a ‘soft science,’ but trial courts, in their gatekeeping function, must ensure that the expertise is not only soft, but that it is science as well. ‘Soft’ science does not mean soft standards.The opinion walks through standards under precedential cases (Daubert/Kelly) and concludes Dr. Coons’ testimony does not qualify.. . .  Cochran warns that ”gatekeeping’ standards of the trial court must keep up with the most current understanding of any scientific endeavor,’ including forensic psychiatry, keeping in mind that ‘The validity of the expert?s conclusions depends upon the soundness of the methodology...continue to full post

Full post as published by Capital Defense Weekly on October 27, 2010 (boomark / email).