# Taylor v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · January 31, 1995 · 889 P.2d 319

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629810

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael Anthony TAYLOR, Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** January 31, 1995
- **Citations:** 889 P.2d 319; 1995 OK CR 10; 1995 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 10; 1995 WL 36524
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lane
- **Judges:** Chapel, Johnson, Lane, Lumpkin, Strubhar
- **Cited by:** 80 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629810

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “independent” review “not limited by deference to the trial judge’s discretion” was appropriate for Daubert determinations
- noting that the court conducts "an independent, thorough review" and does not "simply ask whether an abuse of discretion was committed"

## Opinion text

LANE, Judge,
specially concurring.
Prior to the adoption of the evidence code and Datibert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) the courts of Oklahoma were content to allow the scientific community determine the scientific reliability of new scientific theories. 1 Today, we shift that responsibility to the trial judge and this Court when criminal matters are being tried, a move that is legally valid but may be ill-advised from a practical standpoint.
By making the judge the “gatekeeper” for the admission of scientific evidence, we are requiring him and not the relevant scientific community to determine if a theory is scientifically valid. This opinion does not eliminate the element of acceptance of the scientific community from the consideration, but it adds other factors that are a part of the testing procedures used by the scientific community such as whether the theory has been tested and can it be tested; has it been subject to peer review and publication; and, what is the known or potential rate of error. During the consideration of this ease we dealt with such terms as “product rule”, “linkage disequilibrium”, “Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium”, “population substructure”, “ceiling principle”, “frequency calculation”, “deoxyribonucleic acid”, “polymorphic sequence” and “polymorphisms”. Even with a dictionary open at my side I felt completely inadequate to interpret the scientific reliability of the theory because of my lack of proper skill and training. Heaven help us if a case comes along that relies on sub-atomic physics.
The legal analysis used by the majority is correct. Since my concern is with the practical application of the results, I recommend that the legislature and the practicing members of the bar seriously consider what we have done and determine if new legislation is needed.
. The repetitive use of the word "scientific" is intentional.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629810. Public record. Not legal advice.