384 Forensic dentistry
court decided the case and, in some cases, whether or not further appeal
is likely. The most important piece of information is the Reporter—the
title of the volume in which the case can be found. These are commonly
abbreviated; for example, the Southern Reporter, Third Edition, is written
as So.3d and includes state cases from several southern states. Federal
appellate cases are found in the Federal Reporter, abbreviated as F, with
F.3d representing the Third Edition. The reporters U.S. and SCT refer
to cases from only the U.S. Supreme Court (one published by the court
itself and the other by a commercial publisher). Listed before the volume
or reporter listing is a number representing the exact volume, and listed
after it is a number that is the page in the volume on which the opin-
ion begins. Occasionally a second number follows (after a comma) which
points the reader to the exact page upon which the legal point in ques-
tion is discussed; for example, 509 U.S. 579, 585 (from the 1993 Daubert
v. Merrell Dow U.S. Supreme Court case) alerts the reader to search for
the material on page 585 rather than reading from the beginning (page
579). Next, within parentheses are the date of the decision, and if the case
is from an intermediate-level appellate court, the name of that court will
be noted. Finally, the abbreviation cert. denied may be listed indicating
that an appeal has been refused. The advent of electronic databases and
reporters such as WestLaw, Lexis-Nexis, and FindLaw coupled with the
Internet may allow one to access a decision with as little information as
one of the party names and the date or court.
16.2 Forensic Dentists and Criminal Litigation
16.2.1 Expert Witnesses
Because neither the judge nor the jury may fully understand the complexities
in matters before the bar, the law allows for the use of the expert witnesses.
Unlike other (fact) witnesses, an expert witness is allowed to testify or pres-
ent his or her opinion. That opinion is based upon the expert’s training, edu-
cation, and experience. An expert may conduct tests or other activities that
assist him or her in reaching that opinion. However, the expert’s testimony
and opinion must be grounded in accepted theory and practice. Although
each state and the federal system have individual rules that dictate how expert
testimony can be presented and used, most have a similar basis. The original
case cited for acceptance of an expert arose in 1923 in Frye v. United States in
the federal district court for the District of Columbia and involved a precur-
sor to what is popularly referred to as the lie detector.^1 Because the theory
underlying the device had never gained general acceptance in the scientific
community, the testimony of the expert was not allowed to be presented. The