Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Daubert (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Rule 702 (2)
- Scientific evidence (2)
- Basic trial advocacy (1)
-
- Book review (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Expert witness (1)
- Federal rules of evidence (1)
- Forensic evidence (1)
- Hospital (1)
- Medical (1)
- Medical staff (1)
- Medical staff privileges (1)
- Merrell dow (1)
- Partie civile (1)
- Peter murray (1)
- Physicians (1)
- Privilege (1)
- Rules of evidence (1)
- Trial advocacy (1)
- Victim self-advocacy (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Law
Termination Of Hospital Medical Staff Privileges For Economic Reasons: An Appeal For Consistency, June D. Zellers, Michael R. Poulin
Termination Of Hospital Medical Staff Privileges For Economic Reasons: An Appeal For Consistency, June D. Zellers, Michael R. Poulin
Maine Law Review
The relationship between physicians and hospitals is undergoing significant change. Historically, a physician maintained a private practice in the community and looked to the local hospital for ancillary support when his or her patients were too ill to remain at home. This community-based physician gained access to the hospital by obtaining medical staff privileges. These privileges allowed the physician to admit patients to the hospital, treat patients while they were there, and use the hospital's staff and equipment. The physician generally enjoyed the use of the privileges throughout his or her active career, losing them only if found incompetent. Today, …
Life After Daubert V. Merrell Dow: Maine As A Case Law Laboratory For Evidence Rule 702 Without Frye, Leigh Stephens Mccarthy
Life After Daubert V. Merrell Dow: Maine As A Case Law Laboratory For Evidence Rule 702 Without Frye, Leigh Stephens Mccarthy
Maine Law Review
In reaching its recent decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Supreme Court grappled not with case law but with fundamental questions about the nature of science and its role in law. The court in Daubert addressed the problematic issue of admissibility of expert scientific testimony. In the end the Court rejected as an exclusionary rule the venerable standard set in 1923 by Frye v. United States. Frye held that scientific testimony was to be excluded unless it had gained “general acceptance” in its field. Daubert held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence …
Basic Trial Advocacy, Michael W. Mullane
Basic Trial Advocacy, Michael W. Mullane
Maine Law Review
Mary Crates taught me to “begin as you mean to go on.” Peter Murray's book is a good place to begin for those embarking on a life of trial advocacy. For those of us whose beginnings are distant and often painful memories, it is an excellent reminder of where we meant to go. Trial advocacy is an infinitely complex task. This simple fact is both its joy and curse. Teaching trial advocacy is equally difficult. There is no “never” and no “always.” There is a host of commonly accepted maxims, many of which are contradictory on their face and all …
Scientific Evidence And Forensic Science Since Daubert: Maine Decides To Sit Out On The Dance, Thomas L. Bohan
Scientific Evidence And Forensic Science Since Daubert: Maine Decides To Sit Out On The Dance, Thomas L. Bohan
Maine Law Review
In 1993, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that with the federal adoption of statutory rules of evidence in 1975, the common law rule for determining admissibility of scientific testimony was superseded, and that thenceforth admissibility of scientific testimony was to be determined solely by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (Rule 702). The Frye standard had been adopted in one form or another by most of the federal circuits and by many of the state courts during the 70 years preceding Daubert. Referred to as the “general acceptance” standard, the Frye standard--although adopted in a variety of forms--had …
What Can The Feds And The French Teach Us About Criminal Restitution In Maine?, Benjamin M. Birney
What Can The Feds And The French Teach Us About Criminal Restitution In Maine?, Benjamin M. Birney
Maine Law Review
On New Year’s Eve 1981, seventeen year old Kevin Tunell, returning home from a party at which he had consumed a large amount of champagne, struck and killed eighteen year old Susan Herzog. In 1982, Tunell pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to lecture to teens on the dangers of drunk driving for one year. Herzog’s family, outraged at what they perceived to be the leniency of the sentence, brought a civil action against Tunell, obtaining a $100,000 settlement from his insurance company. In addition, Tunell agreed to send one dollar to Herzog’s family every week for eighteen years. …