tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post4013778855786727533..comments2023-10-10T09:46:13.964-04:00Comments on Tillers on Evidence and Inference: A Mini-History of Police Officer Gang Experts -- Courtesy of the Second CircuitAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03081983465036974432noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-85827892785237995302010-08-11T17:59:20.913-04:002010-08-11T17:59:20.913-04:00SlivaNet, Your comment is interesting. I personall...SlivaNet, Your comment is interesting. I personally suspect that much police officer gang expertise is little more than mumbo jumbo (although I think at least some police officers can legitimately claim to know some things about some gang behavior or some gangs in some places). My skepticism is fueled by the fact that much of the "knowledge" that is taught to police at, e.g., police academies in courses about gangs is apparently based on grab bags of stuff that are collected on some web sites, stuff that is apparently not vetted by anyone or anything except the say-so of the posters who assert, e.g., "Latin Kings do X" and the like.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03081983465036974432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3726083.post-75661441127305001032010-08-11T15:35:05.806-04:002010-08-11T15:35:05.806-04:00Although I am an attorney with a current active li...Although I am an attorney with a current active license and I do keep up with rules of evidence and the law, I do not practice. <br /><br />Why do courts refer to their precedent in admitting such evidence prior to Daubert? It seems to me that under Frye and the old Rule 702, courts were pretty "liberal" about what they would admit. To me the enormous mistake was what I call "junk philosophy." Courts, on very shaky grounds, gave police on-the-job experience the imprimatur of authority by letting their testimony be classified as "expert." They should have been admitted to testify as common lay witnesses and never allowed to speculate. Thinking a cop is an expert with equivalently reliable knowledge as a PhD is just plain NUTS. <br /><br />The Daubert trilogy should have made that a little clearer, but since judges have no science background they don't seem to be able to distinguish the reliability of scientific and engineering knowledge from that of a beat cop. When the International Association of Police Chiefs decided to self-promote by giving cops laudatory titles like "Special Agent," "Inspector," and "Drug Recognition Expert," unsophisticated juries were given the impression that these common technicians had some valid expertise. <br /><br />The old nonsense that cops are experts, which courts and prosecutors had become so accustomed to foisting off on an unsuspecting public should not even be discussed as precedent. To do so is shameless.<br /><br />Even today, hundreds of thousands of people are in prison on the basis of absolutely bad science passed off as valid by zealous prosecutors and police departments whose only goal is to convict.SilvaNethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120932292607322954noreply@blogger.com