Anesthesiology and Expert Witness Testimony.

Lay Opinion Testimony and Expert Opinion Testimony Differentiated; Specific Knowledgee Expert Witness Opinion-Testimony; Proposed Amendments to Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 16 (a)(1)(G) and Fed.R.Evid. 701 and 702

This study explores the influence on juror decision-making of expert witness and rape complainant testimony that explains a complainant's counter-intuitive behaviour. A total of 280 participants read a vignette of a date rape scenario containing one of four combinations of conditions: expert witness testimony present or not present and complainant's explanatory statement present or not present. No significant effects were found between conditions for defendant guilt likelihood and complainant credibility or blameworthiness, but the participants judged the defendant as more blameworthy when both the complainant's explanatory statement and the expert witness testimony were present. The participants’ qualitative responses about their reasoning suggest that they were more likely to use evidence-based reasoning in their judgements when expert witness testimony and cognitive statements were present. This emphasises the importance of police and prosecutors finding ways to mitigate the potentially detrimental effects of rape myths when gathering evidence and constructing a case.

Expert Testimony: Implications for Life Care Planning

Expert Witness Testimony: Fed.R.Evid. 702-705 Primer; Hypothetical Question Discretionary Use

Expert Witness Testimony in Urology Malpractice Litigation

Curbing Law Enforcement Official Testimony Abuse: Overview, Course of Investigation, Structure and Terminology, and Summary Testimony

To clarify the guidelines and responsibilities of expert witnesses and independent medical evaluators (IMEs). Literature review and personal opinion. There have been concerns about the objectivity of expert witnesses and IMEs due to potential financial conflicts of interest. Medical-legal work such as expert witness testimony and independent medical evaluations are a recognized part of the practice of medicine. As such, the opinions and testimony of expert witnesses and IMEs should be held to the same scientific and ethical standards as clinical practice. The concept of "expert" differs when used by the legal system vs when used by physicians. Expert testimony should be based on the best available evidence and standards of care, which requires that experts stay current in their field of expertise, and revise old opinions as new information is published. Personal experience alone is rarely sufficient. A medical expert should be in active practice caring for the type of patient involved in the legal action or, alternatively, be able to demonstrate competence to provide an opinion in the specific area of interest. Testimony should be honest and evidence-based. Testimony and reports should be accurate, impartial, and relevant. Both should be based on current scientific evidence, and avoid the role of advocate for the party. The physician should testify as if the opinions and their bases are subject to peer review.

The emergency nurse as a first responder.

Expert witnesses may be used at trial to educate jurors about information beyond their typical scope of knowledge or to help them understand evidence. Previous research on expert witness testimony regarding false confessions is mixed, and no published studies to date have examined expert testimony specifically as it relates to juvenile false confessions. Given expert testimony on false confessions is occasionally prohibited at trial, other means of educating the public are also warranted. The present study investigated jury-eligible citizens' knowledge of false confessions and whether education, via an expert witness testimony video or a false confession TED Talk, improved the accuracy of, relative to a control video, jurors' knowledge and decision making regarding a vignette-based juvenile defendant who falsely confessed. Results revealed the 284 participants, recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk and social media sites, had substantial knowledge of false confessions. Nonetheless, results of a 2x3 mixed factorial ANOVA indicated that, compared to the control video, both expert witness testimony and the TED Talk significantly improved jurors' knowledge. Although condition did not impact the verdict assigned to the juvenile defendant, the TED Talk led a greater proportion of participants to report it very likely the defendant falsely confessed, whereas the expert witness video led participants to have greater confidence in their confession decisions, compared to the control video. Along with study limitations, policy and practice implications on the use of expert witness testimony and ways of educating jury-eligible citizens about false confessions are discussed.

I test whether hints at an attorney's line of argument influence accountants' expert witness testimony. In experiment 1, litigation services accountants review evidence adopted from a recent auditor-liability case and decide whether a defendant auditor complied with generally accepted auditing standards. I find that hints posed before the review of evidence result in decisions that are more consistent with the attorney's verdict preference. Motivated by a lack of research on the role of accountants' expert testimony in judges' decisions and by evidence that most auditor-liability cases settle, I find in experiment 2 that the certainty of decisions in an expert's report affects the settlement decisions of experienced lawyers, a proxy for trial judges. These findings show that hints at an attorney's line of argument can influence accountants' decisions about evidence documenting auditing issues, and that the certainty of decisions in an expert's report can affect the decisions of mock trial judges. The study has implications for drafting attorney-expert retention letters, and for training accounting experts and the judiciary about the role of hints in the attorney-expert setting.

Comparison of Plaintiff and Defendant Expert Witness Qualification in Malpractice Litigation in Otolaryngology

During the past 15 years I have had the opportunity to review the data from over 100 potential congenital malformation lawsuits. Many came to trial and a review of the testimony and depositions of expert witnesses has been most revealing. Distortion of the facts occurs very commonly. While over 50% of the plaintiff's expert medical witnesses (19/31) distorted the truth, this occurred in less than 10% of the defendent's expert witnesses. Just as important as the distortion of the truth is the gross evidence of lack of scholarship and objectivity. Many expert witnesses become partisans rather than objective experts. Several case histories will be presented to demonstrate the type of distortion that appears and the severity of the lack of objectivity. It is apparent that medical experts are confused about what is the proper role of a qualified medical expert. Medical schools and clinical training programs do not prepare a physician for the role of the expert witness. Consequently, notoriety and financial compensation may be more important to expert witnesses than the need to be an expert. It is suggested that improving the quality of expert medical testimony might ameliorate somewhat the malpractice crisis. This can be accomplished by providing formal education to medical students and residents about the proper role of an expert witness and by exposing to public scrutiny the testimony of medical expert witnesses.(Supported by HD 630; EY-76-S-02-3268.A001)

Recent Home Office research indicates that complainants in sexual offence cases still struggle to gain credibility in the eyes of police, prosecutors and jurors. This article examines some of the credibility barriers confronting victims of sexual offences within the criminal process. In the USA, prosecutors have utilised expert witness testimony in an effort to educate jurors and restore credibility to complainants' accounts. This article critically assesses these developments and explores the potential admissibility of ‘educational’ expert witness testimony in criminal courts in England and Wales.

This chapter will discuss the basic aspects of expert witness testimony in eminent domain cases, and the use in court of prior academic research in the areas of environmental contamination. William Kinnard was active as an expert witness in a variety of real estate litigation, but his seminal work in valuation losses due to environmental issues has been invaluable in presenting property damage considerations in court. This chapter will also explore the impact of recent court decisions regarding expert witness testimony.

This study examined the effect of mock jurors’ perceptions of a defendant’s false confession vs. no confession (false confession presence), coercive interrogation techniques vs. panic-escape (false confession reason), and expert witness testimony vs. defendant explanation vs. expert witness testimony plus defendant explanation for his false confession (source). The four hypotheses and one research question pertained to main effects and interaction effects of false confession presence, false confession reason, and source (separately) and expert witness conditions combined on five outcome variables. Outcome variables were defendant’s guilt, trustworthiness, suggestibility, susceptibility to external influences, and juror’s likelihood of changing their verdict. Using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), mock jurors (N = 415) were randomly assigned to one of twelve conditions, in which they read a murder trial scenario and answered questions regarding the outcome variables. Main effects of false confession were found within the defendant’s perceived guilt, trustworthiness, and suggestibility. Main effects of source were also found, such that the defendant’s perceived guilt, suggestibility, and susceptibility to external influences were significant, as was to jurors’ likelihood of changing their verdict (guilty/not guilty) but follow-up analyses yielded an inconsistent pattern. Expert witness testimony reduced perceptions of guilt and suggestibility, and decreased jurors’ openness to changing their verdict. Numerous False Confession x Reason interactions emerged pertaining to the defendant’s perceived guilt, trustworthiness, and suggestibility, as well as the jurors’ likelihood of changing their verdict (guilty/not guilty). A series of planned contrasts comparing the false confession/coercive interrogation/expert witness vs. the false confession/panic-escape/expert witness conditions; the false confession/coercive interrogation/defendant vs. false confession/panic-escape/defendant condition; and the false confession/coercive interrogation/expert witness + defendant vs. false confession/panic-escape/expert witness + defendant showed no significant differences in jurors’ perceptions of the defendant’s guilt. Keywords: jurors’ perceptions, false confessions