Evidence Commons^™

The "Damned" In A Flashover State: Arson And The Use Of Scientific Methods And Expert Testimony In West Virginia, Christopher W. Maidona

West Virginia Law Review Online

The fire moved quickly through the house as Cameron Todd Willingham screamed for his children from the front porch. Inside the blaze were his three children. Firefighters arrived, uncoiled hoses, and aimed water at the raging fire. However, all three Willingham children died that night from smoke inhalation.

News of the December 23, 1991, tragedy spread throughout Corsicana, Texas. Meanwhile, investigators sought to determine what caused the fire. The investigators “toured the perimeter of the house, taking notes and photographs, like archeologists mapping out a ruin.” In the kitchen, they found smoke and heat damage—signs the fire had not originated …

Introduction, Shari S. Diamond, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

Experts bedeviled the legal system long before seventeenth-century Salem, when the town's good citizens relied on youthful accusers and witchcraft experts to identify the devil's servants in their midst. As in Salem, claims of expertise have often been questioned and objections raised about the bases of expert knowledge. Expertise, then and now, did not have to be based on science; but the importance of science and the testimony of scientific experts has since medieval times been woven into the fabric of the English jurisprudence that Americans inherited. In cases as long ago as 1299 we find examples of courts seeking …

"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …

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 …

Expert Testimony And Professional Licensing Boards: What Is Good, What Is Necessary, And The Myth Of The Majority-Minority Split, Timothy P. Mccormack

Maine Law Review

Defendants regularly argue that a Review Board's decision must be overturned because it is not supported by expert testimony. Boards counter that they are qualified, by virtue of their role as the guardians of the standards for their profession, to determine the appropriateness of a defendant's conduct without the assistance of expert testimony. When courts address these arguments, they routinely ask if expert testimony is necessary to establish the standard of care in disciplinary hearings before a professional licensing board. Courts answer this question differently. In fact there is a seeming schism among the states about the importance of expert …

Debunked, Discredited, But Still Defended: Why Prosecutors Resist Challenges To Bad Science And Some Suggestions For Crafting Remedies For Wrongful Conviction Based On Changed Science, Aviva A. Orenstein

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Flawed science has significantly contributed to wrongful convictions. Courts struggle with how to address such convictions when the mistaken science (such as bogus expert claims about the differences between accidental fires and intentionally set ones) significantly affected the guilty verdict but there is no DNA evidence to directly exonerate the accused. My short piece explores why prosecutors often defend bad science. Mistakes in science tend to serve the prosecution, but there are other more subtle factors that explain prosecutors’ reluctance to address flawed forensic testimony. Such reluctance may arise from fondness for the status quo and a resistance to subverting …