Opinion
ID No. 0911003072.
March 10, 2010.
Mark J. Cutrona, Esquire, Department of Justice, Georgetown, DE.
John F. Brady, Esquire, Lewes, DE.
Dear Counsel:
Before the Court is a defense motion for a Daubert hearing concerning potential testimony from a forensic locksmith. Allegedly, there would be testimony that a certain key was in a certain cylinder lock when the key was forcibly removed. I do not remember if we were on the record or not, but I recall that this expert is supposed to opine that the key that the Defendant produced after the vehicle was reported stolen is the key that made the marks on the cylinder lock and/or vice versa.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U. S. 579 (1993).
This is not an area that requires a pre-trial Daubert hearing. This is not a matter of pushing the envelope as far as scientific theory. This type of expertise has been around for a long time. It is similar to the firearms expert who offers an opinion that only the firing pin from a certain known gun could have made the mark on a bullet casing.
As to whether a particular witness has sufficient training and experience to offer such an opinion may be resolved at the trial, out of the presence of the jury. It is not reasonable to force the witness to travel from Indiana for a hearing prior to trial.
It is reasonable for the State to identify the name of the witness, his involvement in the examination of the key and cylinder lock, etc., as well as his credentials. Since the case was continued at the defense request, there is time for the State to update the discovery. Please do so promptly.
As to relevancy, I disagree with the defense. If the State can establish that the Defendant was involved in the destruction of his vehicle, then that would move the ball on relevance as to making a false report in order to obtain insurance proceeds.