fields claim is protected

Name:
Professor:
Subject:
Date:
Fields Claim is Protected
The case involves a federal sentence of death that was forced onto Fields who is the defendant for the capital offense conviction. A psychiatrist testified against him stating that he predicts Fields would be a threat in the future. However, the psychiatrist also stated that he was not conversant with any particular medical or psychiatric procedure that is used in the arrival to a conclusion that a person will be dangerous in the future nor was he aware of any studies or empirical data that talked about it. His testimony, was, therefore, purely based on opinion after discussions with the prosecutors and an assessment of some of the defendant’s records. The previous decisions made by lower courts on the same contextual subject is when the district court overruled and disregarded the testimony from the prosecutor from the Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical Vs. Daubert case, stating the evidence proffered must be based explicitly on scientific methodology and reasoning.
The case is based on testimony that is not backed by concrete evidence. The testimony without hard scientific backing or even a previous study that proves so is opinionated and are simple claims. For instance, one cannot give a verdict simply just because a person claims they have done illegal things or are yet to do them. The U.S law is stringent on the law, and a person is always innocent until proven guilty. The process of proving one’s guilt is usually dependent on concrete evidence that is based on scientific confirmation (Hoke N.

p) like DNA or fingerprints. In this manner, the case against Fields should be dismissed until further substantial evidence is provided.
The primary significance of the decision that I have made is that it will save a lot of innocent lives and that it makes sure that every decision that is made is contingent on full proof evidence. It will also raise the court’s integrity and credibility and increase the trust that the American citizens have on them. This decision will be used as a reference in different court proceedings and will thus eliminate all cases that are based on false claims or suggestions.
Works Cited
Hoke, Franklin. “Science in The Courtroom: What Evidence Is Admissible–And Who Decides?” The Scientist Magazine®. N. p., 1994. Web. 4 Oct. 2018. https://www.the-scientist.com/news/science-in-the-courtroom-what-evidence-is-admissible–and-who-decides-59183