Evidence Commons^™

Expert Testimony And Scientific Evidence, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

Handout from a day-long lecture on expert and scientific testimony at the Maryland Judicial Institute.

Jurors' Evaluations Of Expert Testimony: Judging The Messenger And The Message, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors' reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analysis of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the …

A Three-Dimensional Model For The Use Of Expert Psychiatric And Psychological Evidence In False Confession Defenses Before The Trier Of Fact, Major Joshua E. Kastenberg

Seattle University Law Review

Part I of this Article delineates a defendant's right to present voluntariness and credibility evidence against his or her confession. This section analyzes the basic constitutional framework of how a defendant can present this evidence and describes the traditional safeguards against false confessions. This background information provides a context for the overarching issue of expert testimony admissibility. Part II provides a basic understanding of differences between the psychiatric (medical model) and psychological (social model) approach to false confessions. It then examines the types of false confession defenses used by defendants and the interrogation techniques challenged by defendants. Part III reviews …

Can Fingerprints Lie?: Re-Weighing Fingerprint Evidence In Criminal Jury Trials, Tamara F. Lawson

Articles

This article discusses fingerprint evidence and its use in criminal jury trials. It is commonly thought that fingerprints "never lie"; however, this article reveals the little known fact that the "science" of fingerprint identification has never been empirically tested or proven to be reliable. It further exposes the seldom-discussed issue of fingerprint misidentification and latent print examiner error. The article explains the importance of fingerprint evidence and its extensive use in all phases of the criminal justice system. Specifically, the article plays out the dramatic courtroom scenario of incriminating fingerprints being found at a crime scene and matching the accused …

The Admissibility Of Expert Testimony In Washington On Post Traumatic Stress Disorder And Related Trauma Syndromes: Avoiding The Battle Of The Experts By Restoring The Use Of Objective Psychological Testimony In The Courtroom, Dr. Brett C. Trowbridge

Seattle University Law Review

This Article focuses on three types of syndrome evidence-rape trauma syndrome, child abuse syndromes, and battered person syndrome-all of which seem to be closely related to the diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Part II provides background regarding the Frye test, explains how mental disorders are defined in the manual clinicians use, DSM-IV-TR, and outlines PTSD and associated syndromes. Parts III, IV, V, and VI address both legal and psychological concerns regarding specific syndromes and identify what types of testimony Washington law allows in each of these three areas. Part VII discusses the concerns regarding the scientific validity of …

The Other Shoe Drops: Minnesota Rejects Daubert, Peter B. Knapp

Faculty Scholarship

In 1991, the United States Supreme Court handed decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., rejecting the long-standing federal test for the admissibility of scientific testimony articulated in Frye v. United States. Unlike many states, however, which embraced Daubert within years--or even months--of the federal decision, Minnesota declined to make Daubert the law of the jurisdiction. In a pair of cases decided in 2000, Goeb v. Tharaldson and Sentinel Mgmt. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, the court held that Minnesota would retain the general acceptance test. The court's rejection of Daubert can be read as an attempt to give the …

Cross-Examining Expertise In The Wto Dispute Settlement Process, Christopher T. Timura

Michigan Journal of International Law

Part I of this Note surveys some of the recent contributions that social theorists and social scientists have made to our understanding of the role of experts in society, and also the structure of expert communities. Experts are everywhere in modern life, and individuals are with increasing frequency asked to extend their trust to experts and bodies of knowledge that they have little or no opportunity to question. Part II highlights how the WTO Agreement deals with experts, using recent WTO panel reports to illustrate the ways in which the DSB has operationalized its various provisions. Part III suggests two …

Are Forensic Locksmiths Really Qualified To Testify As Experts In Cases Of Insurance Fraud: An Examination Of The Admissibility Of Forensic Locksmith Opinions Under Rule 702, Chad A. Hester

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note will argue that while forensic locksmiths may be qualified as experts under Rule 702, they should not necessarily be qualified to testify as to which key started a vehicle last. Part I of this note will discuss the basic history and case law which has established the requirements necessary to qualify an expert to testify under the Rule 702. In addition, Part I will discuss the recently enacted amendments to Rule 702 and how the amended Rule 702 has expanded the admissibility of expert witnesses. Part II of this note will discuss the generally accepted procedures of forensic …

Evidence: 1999-2000 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Expert Testimony To Accommodate The Frye, Daubert, And Kumho Tire Standards Of Admissibility, Rhoda B. Billings

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Amicus Brief: Kumho Tire V. Carmichael, Neil Vidmar, Richard O. Lempert, Shari Seidman Diamond, Valerie P. Hans, Stephan Landsman, Robert Maccoun, Joseph Sanders, Harmon M. Hosch, Saul Kassin, Marc Galanter, Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen Daniels, Edith Greene, Joanne Martin, Steven Penrod, James Richardson, Larry Heuer, Irwin Horowitz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This brief addresses the issue of jury performance and jury responses to expert testimony. It reviews and summaries a substantial body of research evidence about jury behavior that has been produced over the past quarter century. The great weight of that evidence challenges the view that jurors abdicate their responsibilities as fact finders when faced with expert evidence or that they are pro-plaintiff, anti-defendant, and anti-business.

The Petitioners and amici on behalf of petitioners make a number of overlapping, but empirically unsupported, assertions about jury behavior in response to expert testimony, namely that juries are frequently incapable of critically evaluation …

Federal Rules Of Evidence: Raising The Bar On Adminissibility Of Expert Testimony: Can Your Expert Make The Grade After Kumho Tire V. Carmichael, Douglas B. Maddock Jr.

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Evidence: 1997-1998 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. V. Carmichael: Brief Amici Curiae Of Neil Vidmar, Richard O. Lempert, Shari Seidman Diamond, Valerie P. Hans, Stephan Landsman, Robert Maccoun, Joseph Sanders, Harmon M. Hosch, Saul Kassin, Marc Galanter, Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen Daniels, Edith Greene, Joanne Martin, Steven Penrod, James Richardson, Larry Heuer And Irwin Horowitz In Support Of Respondents, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Richard C. Lempert

Appellate Briefs

Amici are university professors or hold positions in independent research institutions. Each has conducted empirical research on juries. The interest of these amici in this case is to provide the Court with an accurate picture of what a substantial body of research says about jury competence and behavior as it pertains to the evaluation of expert testimony. Short biographies of each amicus are provided in Appendix A.

This brief addresses the issue of jury performance and jury responses to expert testimony. It reviews and summarizes a substantial body of research evidence about jury behavior that has been produced over the …

Shaken Baby Syndrome: Who Are The True Experts, Joseph D. Hatina

Cleveland State Law Review

Shaken baby syndrome is a serious form of child maltreatment, often involving infants younger than six months of age. It commonly occurs, yet it is frequently overlooked in its most chronic form and underdiagnosed in its most serious expression. Section II of this article will discuss the symptoms, presentation, and clinical findings of shaken baby syndrome. It will conclude by looking at recommendations from the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. Section III delves into the history, function and statistics of Child Death Review Teams on a national level. The discussion ends by examining Ohio's proposed legislation concerning …

Evidence: 1996-1997 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Conflicts Of Interest In Scientific Expert Testimony, Mark R. Patterson

Faculty Scholarship

Conflicts of interest have significant implications for the reliability of scientific expert testimony. However, the courts' treatment of conflicts is not always in accord either with the treatment of conflicts in scientific practice or with the particular problems that scientists' conflicts present in court. In response, this Article proposes two basic changes in the treatment of scientific expert testimony. First, courts should strive to separate issues of bias from issues of scientific validity-the two sets of issues are now conflated at times. Second, courts should pay more attention to biases of scientists who perform the research underlying expert testimony, whereas …

Rule 701: Opinion Testimony By Lay Witnesses

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Other Accident" Evidence In Product Liability Actions: Highly Probative Or An Accident Waiting To Happen?, Robert A. Sachs

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence: Taylor V. State--Oklahoma Abandons The Frye Test And Forces Its State Court Judges To Enter The Twilight Zone, Paige Queen

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 702: Testimony By Experts

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 704: Opinion On Ultimate Issue

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 803(4): Statements For Purposes Of Medical Diagnosis Or Treatment

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Essay surveys three major transformations in state and federal rules of evidence since the introduction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules have not only inspired a movement toward codification in the states, they have also liberalized the admission of expert testimony and hearsay. This partially explains thirteen states' reluctance to codify. Judges have furthered this trend by admitting far more discretionary hearsay evidence than Congress intended. Professor Rossi doubts this expansion of the hearsay exceptions would have occurred without the adoption of the FRE and suggests that the newly formed Advisory Committee will produce greater substantive changes …

An Opinion: Federal Judges Misconstrue Rule 704 (Or Is That An Impermissible Legal Conclusion), Kathy Jo Cook

Cleveland State Law Review

This article addresses the need to formulate a uniform and predictable approach to the admissibility of expert opinion testimony which relates the law to the facts. First, it briefly discusses the history of expert opinion testimony. Second, it discusses, through a case analysis, the difficult, if not impossible task that courts have assumed in attempting to differentiate between two types of expert opinions: (1) those which are, by their nature, factual; and (2) those which require some level of legal analysis-directly relating the law to the facts of the case. Finally, this article suggests an alternative approach which is arguably …

Expert Testimony, Barry C. Scheck

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Experts, Stories, And Information, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

In the infancy of the jury trial, there were no witnesses. The jury was self-informing. Members of the jury were drawn from the community. It was expected that they would know, either firsthand or on the basis of what they had heard, the true facts of any disputed incident, and they were gathered together to say what those facts were. Ronald Allen and Joseph Miller, in their insightful paper, see the ideal of the self-informing jury as very much alive today. Allen and Miller tell us that jurors ideally should experience firsthand the factual information needed to arrive at rational …

Admissibility Of Expert Testimony On Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome In Kentucky, Michele Meyer Mccarthy

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction Of Scientific Evidence In Criminal Cases, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

No abstract provided.