293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
Appellant, defendant below, was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree, and from the judgment prosecutes this appeal.1 The case was submitted on November 7, 1923, and decided on December 3, 1923, by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia with Associate Justice Van Orsdel writing the opinion.2
In the course of the trial counsel for defendant offered an expert witness to testify to the result of a deception test made upon defendant.3 The test is described as the systolic blood pressure deception test, and it is asserted that blood pressure is influenced by changes in the emotions of the witness, the systolic blood pressure rises being brought about by nervous impulses sent to the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system.4
Scientific experiments, it is claimed, have demonstrated that fear, rage, and pain produce a rise of systolic blood pressure, and that conscious deception or falsehood, concealment of facts, or guilt of crime, when accompanied by fear of detection while the person is under examination, raises the systolic blood pressure in a curve which corresponds to the struggle going on in the subject's mind between fear and attempted control of that fear as the examination touches the vital points in respect of which he is attempting to deceive the examiner.5
Prior to the trial defendant was subjected to this deception test, and counsel offered the scientist who conducted the test as an expert to testify to the results obtained.6 The offer was objected to by counsel for the government, and the court sustained the objection.7 Counsel for defendant then offered to have the proffered witness conduct a test in the presence of the jury, and this also was denied.8
Whether the systolic blood pressure deception test has gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made?9
The rule is that the opinions of experts or skilled witnesses are admissible in evidence in those cases in which the matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it.10 When the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence.11 Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define.12 Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized.13 While courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.14
No. The facts of the case establish that the appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree and appealed the judgment.15 During the trial, an expert witness was offered to testify about the systolic blood pressure deception test performed on the defendant, but the government objected and the court sustained the objection.16 An offer to conduct the test before the jury was also denied.17 Applying the rule to these established facts, the systolic blood pressure deception test has not gained general acceptance in the physiological and psychological fields.18
The principle has not crossed from the experimental to the demonstrable stage with sufficient recognition among authorities in the field.19
The systolic blood pressure deception test has not gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made.20 The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.21