Criminal Case: Frye V. United States, Wisconsin v. Steele

Criminal Case Review
Student Name
Institution
Forensic
Frye V. United States
After being convicted of second-degree murder by a lower court the appellant, Mr. Frye was disallowed from presenting testimonial evidence after a deception test.
The digest of the law states that for a test, for example, the systolic blood pressure deception test to be admissible in a court of law, it ought to have gained scientific recognition from the relevant authority and experts in the field. These include Physiological authorities and experts.
Facts: My Fryer was put on trial and eventually charged with murder. My Fryer tried to call his expert witness to testify that he had taken a deception test and make further clarification on the results of the test. The lower court held that the expert testimony was inadmissible, and the appellant was still charged with second-degree murder.
Was it right for the court to exclude the expert testimony regarding the systolic blood pressure test the appellant undertook during his trial? Yes, the tests were properly disregarded because they did not meet the threshold requirements that such evidence is, "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." (Kadane, 2008, p. 109)
The court's rationale here was based on the fact that the deception equipment used was scientific based and it had not warranted sufficient establishment and acceptance in the field in which its belongs to be admissible. In effect, for any scientific equipment to be used in a court of law as evidence it has to have been passed by authority and experts of that field.
Wisconsin v. Steele
Steele killed his wife, and there are no other facts that were collected regarding the incident. A synopsis of the law states that evidence about intent to crime is admissible in the guilt phase of a bifurcated trial. However, psychiatric evidence is inadmissible and belongs to the mental responsibility phase.
Facts: Steele killed his wife and claim that he did not intend to kill her and in the guilt phase of his trial he offered expert witnesses to give their opinion on his capacity to for the intention to kill. The verdict of the court was that the psychiatric evidence was inadmissible in the guilt phase of a bifurcated trial (Levy, Karst, & Winkler, 2000, p. 342).
The court was right to exclude the expert opinion in the court's decision. Doing the opposite would mean that a bifurcated trial just exposes the jury to duplicate testimony and introducing the confusing matter of expert testimony.
The implications are that bifurcated trials should be used as an opportunity to ease up the legal process and not make the matter overcomplicated by the introduction of third parties.