Okay. My concern is this. She is certainly an expert in the area of microbiology. I'm not challenging that. She's even entitled to report on frequencies for a particular allele because there's data in the laboratory, and she can testify to that as business records. But now she's being asked as an expert to testify to what methods are used to calculate a probability, a cross multiple loci. That has nothing to do with a Frye hearing. It has nothing to do with what the law is in California. It has to do with no foundation that she has the expertise to testify to what are the appropriate methods for calculating a probability of cross loci. That has to come from somebody who has either the expertise in statistics or expertise in population genetics. And no foundation has been laid that this witness has that expertise. When she testifies as an expert, she can't borrow the expertise of another witness.
And so one of the concerns I had even before, for instance, was on certain articles she had read. Although an expert can rely on hearsay and publications to help her develop her opinion, it has to be a threshold finding, that she is in fact an expert in that particular discipline. And we don't want to confuse the different disciplines here. Expertise that enables somebody to be an expert and give statistical testimony is different than the expertise that comes from being a microbiologist and testifying about genetic variation and how to do these gels and the like. And I don't believe that foundation has been laid, and that's why I object to her testifying as to the actual method for calculating the probability of cross loci.
Your Honor, I couldn't disagree more. I have in my hand sections of five California cases that deal with the issue of qualifications at trial as far as general acceptance hearing, Frye, dealing with statistics, which is a fraction of this witness' qualifications even to talk about frequency data, and I have those if the Court would like to see them. But at this point, this witness has described her background, her training since 1988 at this point as well as the fact that she has qualified as an expert in by far the majority of her 90 cases presenting frequency data. So I think when the Court takes all this and in combination particularly with the case law in California, that this witness far exceeds the threshold needed to be able to testify as an expert on population frequency data in front of a jury.
Two things very briefly. One is, I believe there are instances in fact where her expertise has been rejected by a Court of law. Number two, we know that from the record in those other--in that particular--
Certainly. In that particular discipline of population genetics. And, number two, how do know that lawyers in the other cases didn't make the same objection I'm making with the same factual record? I mean that's the problem with citing some of those other cases. The point is, I don't believe at this point in time, they've laid adequate foundation. It is as simple as that.
When she testifies as an expert, she can't borrow the expertise of another witness.
Expertise that enables somebody to be an expert and give statistical testimony is different than the expertise that comes from being a microbiologist and testifying about genetic variation and how to do these gels and the like.
This witness has described her background, her training since 1988 at this point as well as the fact that she has qualified as an expert in by far the majority of her 90 cases presenting frequency data.
How do we know that lawyers in the other cases didn't make the same objection I'm making with the same factual record?