You have used a newly released forensic investigation tool, which doesn't meet the Daubert Test, during a case. The case has ended-up in court. What argument could the defense make to weaken your case?
You have used a newly released forensic investigation tool, which doesn't meet the Daubert Test, during a case. The case has ended-up in court. What argument could the defense make to weaken your case?
In a courtroom setting, the admissibility of scientific evidence is often evaluated according to the Daubert Test, which includes criteria such as whether the method has been subjected to peer review and publication, among other factors. If the forensic investigation tool you used has not been reviewed and accepted by your peers, this could cast doubt on its reliability and scientific validity, thereby weakening the evidence and your case. Therefore, the most compelling argument the defense could make is that the tool has not been reviewed and accepted by your peers.
C. The tool has not been reviewed and accepted by your peers This argument aligns with the Daubert Test criteria, which emphasize peer review and general acceptance in the scientific community. If the forensic tool you used has not been reviewed and accepted by your peers, its reliability and validity could be questioned, thereby weakening the evidence and your case.