Law Commons^™

"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 …

The Forensic Community Can Educate Lawyers, Judges, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

Newsroom: Kuckes On Discovery Ruling 7-7-2016, Sheri Qualters, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Billy Joel: The Minstrel Testifies Or How The Rules Of Evidence Handcuff The Piano Man, Hon. Richard A. Dollinger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Gatekeeping" Agency Reliance On Scientific And Technical Materials After Daubert: Ensuring Relevance And Reliability In The Administrative Process, Paul S. Miller, Bert W. Rein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Valenti V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 5, 2015), Shannon Diaz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a “chemist” as defined by NRS § 50.320must be qualified as an expert in a Nevada court of record prior to the admission of his or her affidavit attesting to an individual’s blood-alcohol concentration in a driver’s license revocation hearing

Introduction, Miriam F. Miquelon-Weismann

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Legal educators increasingly use the classroom to import expertise from scientists and social scientists to better prepare law students to engage in specialized and collaborative fields of practice. Indeed, this project grew out of a paper course on Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases offered during the spring 2006 semester at the law school. Students heard from accident reconstruction experts, DNA scientists, forensic pathologist and medical malpractice experts. In February 2006, Dr. Aaron Lazare, Dean and Chancellor at the University of Massachusetts, addressed the law school on a cutting-edge legal theory from his recently published book, “On Apology.” Stimulated …

Virginia's Gap Between Punishment And Culpability: Re-Examining Self-Defense Law And Battered Women's Syndrome, Kendall Hamilton

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legal Ethics And Scientific Testimony: In Defense Of Manufacturing Uncertainty, Deconstructing Expertise And Other Trial Strategies, David Caudill

David S Caudill

No abstract provided.

Death And Politics: The Role Of Demographic Characteristics And Testimony Type In Death Penalty Cases Involving Future Dangerousness Testimony, Amy Magnus, Miliaikeala Heen, Joel D. Lieberman

Graduate Research Symposium (GCUA) (2010 - 2017)

Past research examining expert future dangerousness prediction testimony in death penalty cases and civil confinement hearings for sex offenders has found that jurors tend to be more persuaded by less scientific “clinical” testimony and less influenced by “actuarial” based testimony. Jurors demonstrate greater receptivity for clinical testimony despite the fact that actuarial testimony has been shown to be a better predictor of future dangerousness. Research in this area has focused on identifying cognitive factors that can potentially be manipulated during a trial to increase the effectiveness of actuarial testimony on jurors. A mock jury study was conducted to extend these …

Juror Typologies And Dna Comprehension:Who Benefits From Jury Trial Innovations?, Mari Sakiyama, Joel D. Lieberman

Graduate Research Symposium (GCUA) (2010 - 2017)

When DNA evidence is presented in the courtroom, it is typically accompanied by complex testimony conveying information such as the method of generating population frequencies, match criteria and probabilities, as well as laboratory errors and error rates. Although this evidence may have high probative value, the legal community has expressed growing concern regarding jurors’ ability to comprehend it. However, courts have implemented a variety of jury trial innovations to facilitate jurors’ ability to process complex information. Although these innovations may have a positive effect on comprehension of complex trial evidence, it is unclear whether some jurors are more likely to …

The Impact Of Daubert On The Admissibility Of Behavioral Science Testimony, Henry F. Fradella, Adam Fogarty, Lauren O'Neill

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Going After The 'Hired Guns': Is Improper Expert Witness Testimony Unprofessional Conduct Or The Negligent Practice Of Medicine?, Jennifer A. Turner

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Civil Practice And Procedure, Hon. Jane Marum Roush

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Working Without A Net: The Third Circuit Juggles Skepticism And Deference Inside The Ring Of Products Liability Experts After The Daubert Trilogy In Pineda V. Ford Motor Co. & (And) Calhoun V. Yamaha Corp., Jennifer E. Burke

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Idealizing Science And Demonizing Experts: An Intellectual History Of Expert Evidence, Jennifer L. Mnookin

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expertise In Action: Presenting And Attacking Expert Evidence In Dna Fingerprinting Cases, Michael Lynch

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Irrelevance, And Central Relevance, Of The Boundary Between Science And Non-Science In The Evaluation Of Expert Witness Reliability, D. Michael Risinger

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Where The Rubber Meets The Road: Thinking About Expert Evidence As Expert Testimony, Simon A. Cole

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supersizing Daubert Science For Litigation And Its Implications For Legal Practice And Scientific Research, Gary Edmond

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legal Ethics And Scientific Testimony: In Defense Of Manufacturing Uncertainty, Deconstructing Expertise And Other Trial Strategies, David S. Caudill

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Images Of Expertise: Converging Discourses On The Use And Abuse Of Science In Massachusetts V. Epa, David S. Caudill

Villanova Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Finding The Golden Mean With Daubert: An Elusive, Perhaps Impossible, Goal, Robert P. Mosteller

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dangerousness And Expertise Redux, Christopher Slobogin

ExpressO

Civil commitment, confinement under sexual predator laws, and many capital and noncapital sentences depend upon proof of a propensity toward violence. This article discusses the current state of prediction science, in particular the advantages and disadvantages of clinical and actuarial prediction, and then analyzes how the rules of evidence should be interpreted in deciding whether opinions about propensity should be admissible. It concludes that dangerousness predictions that are not based on empirically-derived probability estimates should be excluded from the courtroom unless the defense decides otherwise. This conclusion is not bottomed on the usual concern courts and commentators raise about expert …

Expertise And Instinct In The Assessment Of Testamentary Capacity, Pamela Champine

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past And Present, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

For over twenty years, and particularly since the Supreme Court's Daubert' decision in 1993, much ink has been spilled debating the problem of scientific evidence in the courts. Are jurors or, in the alternative, judges qualified to assess scientific reliability? Do courts really need to be concerned about "junk science"? What mechanisms can promote better decision making in scientific cases? Even a cursory scan of the literature shows the recent explosion of interest in these issues, precipitating new treatises, hundreds of articles, and countless conferences for judges, practitioners, and academics.

Does Frye Or Daubert Matter? A Study Of Scientific Admissibility Standards, Edward K. Cheng, Albert Yoon

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Nearly every treatment of scientific evidence begins with a faithful comparison between the Frye and Daubert standards. Since 1993, jurists and legal scholars have spiritedly debated which standard is preferable and whether particular states should adopt one standard or the other. These efforts beg the question: Does a state's choice of scientific admissibility standard matter? A growing number of scholars suspect that the answer is no. Under this theory, the import of the Supreme Court's Daubert decision was not in its doctrinal standard, but rather in the general consciousness it raised about the problems of unreliable scientific evidence. This Article …

Constructing Products Liability: Reforms In Theory And Procedure, Frank J. Vandall

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Causation In Toxic Tort Litigation: Which Way Do We Go, Judge, Laurie Alberts

Villanova Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.