The Court at this time reverses the plaintiffs' motion to preclude testimony of Dr. Fredric Rieders regarding presence of EDTA in the evidence samples.
I read the moving papers, the opposition and the -- I guess this is a responsive pleading by the moving party.
Either side have anything else they wish to add?
I simply add to our papers, I think it's outrageous they would make this motion on December 9.
Besides your outrage, do you have anything you want to add with regard to the merits?
KEY QUOTEThere's no testimony offered by any expert in the case to the effect this is new technology, that this is not acceptable technology. All the experts that testified in the criminal case and by deposition say this is an accepted method.
Submit on that.
KEY QUOTEOkay.
The Court having read the transcripts that have been submitted together with the moving and opposing papers, notes that the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Terry D. Lee is, as well as the other documentation submitted, tend to support the position that the -- the testing procedure and the experiment itself in terms of science is a valid and accepted science and a valid and accepted technique.
So I think from the standpoint of the Kelly Frye requirements, the objection of plaintiff is not well taken.
With regards to the remainder of plaintiffs' objection with respect to whether or not the testing done by the FBI agent --
-- Martz, may or may not support one conclusion or the other, I think each expert has their opinion with regards to what it is capable of or what it does or does not establish. I think that goes to the weight of the evidence.
So the motion to preclude is denied.
Besides your outrage, do you have anything you want to add with regard to the merits?
There's no testimony offered by any expert in the case to the effect this is new technology, that this is not acceptable technology. All the experts that testified in the criminal case and by deposition say this is an accepted method.
I think each expert has their opinion with regards to what it is capable of or what it does or does not establish. I think that goes to the weight of the evidence.