“[A]bsolute certainty of result or unanimity of scientific opinion is not required for admissibility so long as the conclusions drawn by the experts are based on generally accepted and reliable scientific principles.” (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- “[A]bsolute certainty of result or unanimity of scientific opinion is not required for admissibility so long as the conclusions drawn by the experts are based on generally accepted and reliable scientific principles.” (emphasis added)
- squalid ____ _________ lodgings, without plumbing; rotten food; numerous instances of slapping, choking, kicking
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
While I am disposed toward the standard set by Judge Friendly in this kind of case in United States v. Shackney, 333 F.2d 475 (2d Cir.1964), and I likewise do not adopt the rationale set out in United States v. Mussry, 726 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855 , 105 S.Ct. 180 , 83 L.Ed.2d 114 (1984), I am persuaded by Judge Merritt’s reasoned analysis of both principal issues in this case, and I therefore concur in Parts I, II and III and the result ultimately reached.
It seems to me that perhaps the best expression of the rule is set out in United States v. Bibbs, 564 F.2d 1165, 1168 (5th Cir.1977), which requires proof of physical harm or reasonable fear of harm and coercion imposed by a defendant on a victim before a prosecution may be sustained:
[A] defendant is guilty of holding a person to involuntary servitude if the defendant has placed him in such fear of physical harm that the victim is afraid to leave regardless of the victim’s opportunities for escape.
I would therefore reverse and remand in this case.