Amicus Brief: Joshua Clark
Joshua Clark v. The State of MISSISSIPPI
Filing Date
June 8, 2020
Charge
Depraved-Heart Murder
Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi
Partners
Mississippi Innocence Project
Summary
CIFS and the Mississippi Innocence Project filed this brief in the Supreme Court of Mississippi in Joshua Clark’s case to argue that opinion testimony purporting to determine with certainty that a third-party’s unwitnessed conduct constituted “abuse,” based solely on a few non-specific medical findings, is not admissible by Daubert and Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Especially in cases such as this, where expert opinion evidence constitutes the proof on all of the elements of the crime, it is critical that courts ensure that the expert evidence satisfies the “exacting” reliability demands of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and associated Mississippi authority. See, e.g., Mississippi Transportation Commission v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2003); Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702. Dr. Karen Lakin’s testimony, however, fell far short of these exacting demands. Her testimony is of a categorical type that should give this Court serious pause as it decides how to shape and control the admissibility of expert opinion in a way that advances the rule of law. Some of Dr. Lakin’s testimony was false as a matter of science. Some of the testimony was not the product of reliable scientific methods but of the mere ipse dixit of the expert. Some of it was presented in absolute terms, when at most the science would permit only probabilistic claims. These characteristics are a frequent problem in this specialized area of medicine and law, but they can also be symptomatic of broader forensic science issues when courts do not apply proper admissibility strictures as enunciated in McLemore and codified in Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702.