Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

"Yer Outa Here!" A Framework For Analyzing The Potential Exclusion Of Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stephen D. Easton Jan 1998

"Yer Outa Here!" A Framework For Analyzing The Potential Exclusion Of Expert Testimony Under The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stephen D. Easton

University of Richmond Law Review

It does not take long for even a casual observer of criminal and civil trials to make two observations about expert witnesses. The first of these observations comes almost immediately: experts are vitally important to the judicial process. In many trials, the outcome largely depends upon which set of impressively credentialed experts the jurors (and the judge) believe. The second observation generally comes later than the first: a significant amount of shoddy "science," phony logic, faulty analysis, sleight of hand, and other assorted junk enters the courtroom dressed up in the emperor's clothes of expert testimony.


Expert Witness Testimony: Back To The Future, L. Timothy Perrin Jan 1995

Expert Witness Testimony: Back To The Future, L. Timothy Perrin

University of Richmond Law Review

Expert witnesses are at once detested and treasured. The scorn is significant because of the increasingly prominent role experts play in both civil and criminal litigation. Experts are seen as mercenaries, prostitutes or hired guns, witnesses devoid of principle who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. Experts are not impartial professionals who explain difficult concepts to the trier of fact. Rather, experts become advocates for the side who hired them. The consequences of this role change are not desirable: experts testify to matters beyond their expertise, render opinions that are unreliable, speculative or outside what the experts would be ...


Corporate And Institutional Accident Investigations As Work Product Pursuant To The Rules Of The Supreme Court Of Virginia, William Todd Benson Jan 1983

Corporate And Institutional Accident Investigations As Work Product Pursuant To The Rules Of The Supreme Court Of Virginia, William Todd Benson

University of Richmond Law Review

If the magnitude of the mishap so warrants, many businesses immediately call their insurance adjuster or other accident investigator. In some of the larger businesses, accident investigation and insurance have become in-house operations. This quick reflex toward early fact investigation is prompted, in part, by a healthy respect for the potentiality of claims arising out of the day to day conduct of business affairs. When a suit against such company ultimately is ified and discovery sought, an issue often arises concerning whether early institutional investigations are "work product" for purposes of the federal or Virginia rules of civil procedure. This ...


Discovery Of Expert Information Under The Federal Rules Jan 1976

Discovery Of Expert Information Under The Federal Rules

University of Richmond Law Review

With the adoption of extensive pretrial discovery mechanisms, preparation for trial in the federal system underwent a dramatic alteration. Instead of relying upon pleadings to perform the tasks of notice-giving, issue formulation, and fact-revelation, the various discovery devices available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow the parties "to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial."' Discovery was created to promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposal of litigation. To this end, discovery serves to (1) facilitate the formulation and narrowing of issues; (2) protect against unfair surprise during trial; (3) detect any superflous ...


Should Virginia Adopt The Federal Rules Of Discovery?, Emanuel Emroch Jan 1966

Should Virginia Adopt The Federal Rules Of Discovery?, Emanuel Emroch

University of Richmond Law Review

More than fifteen years -ago Virginia made a very important and progressive modification of the rules of practice and procedure in actions at law and suits in equity. The promulgation of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Appeals in 1950 substituted a modern system for an archaic, outmoded, and cumbersome one. Under the Rules litigants can state their case and plead in a brief and succinct manner, unhampered with unnecessary and ancient verbiage. There is less emphasis on form and more on substance, and this facilitates the better administration of justice. Generally, the Rules have unquestionably served the purposes ...


Depositions For Discovery: The New Virginia Rule, J. Westwood Smithers Jan 1961

Depositions For Discovery: The New Virginia Rule, J. Westwood Smithers

University of Richmond Law Review

Important amendments to its Rules, effective April 1, 1961, were recently adopted by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Perhaps the change of most interest to trial lawyers was the revision of Rule 3:23 relating to D'epositions and Discovery in Actions at Law.