State v. Reid (2000)
In State v. Reid, 254 Conn. 540, 546, 757 A.2d 482 (2000) the Court held that expert testimony concerning microscopic hair analysis was not subject to a Daubert analysis.
The court stated that despite the fact that the challenged expert testimony was based in science, the testimony was "about a subject that simply required the jurors to use their own powers of observation and comparison.
During his testimony, the expert witness displayed an enlarged photograph of one of the defendant's hairs and one of the hairs recovered from the victim's clothing as they appeared side-by-side under the comparison microscope. The expert witness explained to the jurors how the hairs were similar and what particular features of the hairs were visible. He also drew a diagram of a hair on a courtroom blackboard for the jurors.
The jurors were free to make their own determinations as to the weight they would accord the expert's testimony in the light of the photograph and their own powers of observation and comparison. The jurors were not subject to confusing or obscure scientific evidence, but were able to use the testimony to guide them in their own determination of the similarity of the two hairs." Id., 547-48.