Amicus Brief New Jersey v. Cavallo (1982) Parties: Defendants are two individuals challenging the New Jersey law on the admissibility of expert testimony. Plaintiff is the State of New Jersey. Facts: On June 16, 1977, Murro invited the victim, a married woman who was two months pregnant, to smoke marijuana with Cavallo in the parking lot. They later agreed to go smoke at Cavallo’s house but ended up in an empty field. According to the alleged victim, both defendants abducted and raped her. While the defendants argued that Murro and the alleged victim engaged in a consensual sexual activity. The victim drove home and went to police headquarter with her husband to report the incident. Procedural History: There were no witnesses to the crime in question, so the trial focused on the credibility of the conflicting deceptions between both encounter of events. During the trial, Cavallo attempt to offer the expert testimony of a psychiatrist, Dr. Kuris, from Hunterdon Medical Center to offer character evidence on how he does not possess psychological traits related to a rapist. The judge denied the expert …show more content…
Arguments: The State argues that “proffered evidence” of Dr. Kuris’ expert testimony is irrelevant because Cavallo may have committed rape on this specific encounter regardless if he does not possess rapist characteristics. The defendants argue that the reliability of scientific expert testimony should determine the importance, not admissibility. Issue: Whether, (1) Dr. Kuris’ expert testimony is relevant as an expert opinion evidence of Cavallo’s character under the ruling of Rule 47? (2) Did Dr. Kuris’ expert testimony satisfy the special limitations on expert evidence under the ruling of Rule 56 (2) and New Jersey case law? (3) Did Dr. Kuris’ expert testimony achieve general acceptance in the scientific community to convince the court that it is reasonably