Davis v. State of Ohio, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. CV96-312322
February 25, 2000
Voir dire, motion in limine, character evidence, Emanuel Tanay, Richard Eberling, hearsay, expert testimony, criminal profiling, Ohio R. Evid.. 702, Ohio R. Evid.. 404, defendant's filings
The State of Ohio submits relevant law to be considered during the voir dire of a proposed expert’s testimony, by reminding the court that expert testimony cannot be based on hearsay nor violate the rule against propensity character evidence. The State of Ohio takes issue with the logic of Emanuel Tanay’s conclusion that Richard Eberling committed the murder and not Dr. Samuel Sheppard, which is based on the psychological makeup of each individual. Such evidence, it is argued, must not be admitted because it is based on hearsay from various books and it seeks to provide what is inadmissible character evidence.
Martin, Kathleen A. and Mason, William D., "Defendant State of Ohio's Memorandum Regarding Voir Dire of Emanuel Tanay" (2000). 1995-2002 Court Filings. 147.