In a capital case, does the admission of expert testimony from a witness regarding a subject outside his area of expertise violate a defendant's Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, a fair trial, and a reliable conviction and sentence?

QUESTION PRESENTED The State’s case at trial was lacking in direct evidence and built instead on circumstantial evidence. The State bolstered its otherwise circumstantial case through the expert opinion of Scott Milroy, who testified that a chisel found in Mr. Lane’s truck was the only chisel “in the world” that could have made the marks on front door of the home where Mrs. Lane was staying. This was the only piece of physical evidence used to tie Mr. Lane to the scene of the crime. The trial court qualified Mr. Milroy as an expert and allowed him to give his opinion despite the fact that he had never previously analyzed chisel marks on wood. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed and the Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari. The question presented is: In a capital case, does the admission of expert testimony from a witness regarding a subject outside his area of expertise violate a defendant’s Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, a fair trial, and a reliable conviction and sentence? 1