The relevance and the admissibility of evidence that are used as a part of defense in court cases are often controversial. Joan E. Benin and Mary S. Henifin present the “Daubert Standard” proposed by the Supreme. Court, which lets the trial court judges act as ”gatekeepers” for scientific evidence by examining if the evidence is reached by proper methodology Benin and Henifin also addresses that science evidence itself can be a matter of dispute since law and science are “seeking different kinds of truth “, “scientific debates rarely can be resolved”. On the other hand, Richard E. Redding and N. Dickon Reppucci conducts an experiment that shows the decisions judges make could be biased, and that judges often have different evidentiary ratings because of their different attitudes toward social science. Both articles indicate that expert testimony or scientific evidence is often not dispositive.
However, the articles have yet to address how a “just” decision can be made, according to the relevance of scientific evidence, when the defendant’s plea is a controversial subject. In the past, there have been many insanity defense cases where the psychological disorder itself is disputable. This paper will examine the relevance of evidence and the decision made in People v Babbitt. In this case, Manuel Pina Babbit, who is previously convicted of first-degree murder and given the sentence of death, appeals to the Supreme Court of California. In this court, Babbitt presents expert testimony to prove that he suffers from PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder. Nevertheless, the court affirms the conviction and denies the petition for writ of habeas corpus is the evidence/testimony presented in the case “reliable” according to the Daubert Standard? Did the court make a just decision?
