Admissibility Of Expert Witness Testimony Research Articles

Book Review

Book Review

Lessons from Canadian Courts for All Expert Witnesses.

Expert witnesses have a special place in court, bringing their knowledge and skills in the form of opinion evidence to educate the court. This allows the fact-finder to make legal decisions more effectively. Although experts are often allowed a role in civil and criminal matters, this brings certain risks to the court process. Admissibility of expert witness testimony in Canada has generally paralleled American law, including the standards enunciated in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc. (1993). Recently, there has been a series of decisions in Canadian law that has focused on the role of the expert witness in the court. Although only having precedence in Canada, these cases highlight important legal principles that all expert witnesses must navigate, regardless of their jurisdiction. We review these significant cases to assist forensic psychiatrists in recognizing and professionally navigating potential pitfalls in giving expert opinions.

Applying statistics to the gatekeeping of expert evidence: Introducing the Structured Statistical Judgement (SSJ).

Daubert required judges to base their decisions about the admissibility of expert witness testimony in large part on the reliability and validity of empirical observations. Because judges have a wide array of duties and may not be equipped to understand the complexities of statistical analysis, some jurists have recommended that court-appointed experts assist judges in their gatekeeping function. To assist such experts in scrutinizing empirical papers, we propose a Structured Statistical Judgement (SSJ) that takes advantage of advances in the various statistical methods - such as effect sizes that adjust for error - which have allowed researchers to report increasingly more reliable and valid observations. We also include supplementary materials that court-appointed experts can use both as a codebook to operationalize the SSJ and as a quick reference that will aid consultation with judges. An initial application of the SSJ examined all 93 empirical articles published in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law and Law and Human Behavior in 2015 and resulted in excellent interrater reliability (π = 0.83; π = 0.95; π = 0.97), at the same time it indicated that a majority of the articles fail to include the comprehensive and transparent statistical analysis that would be most useful to courts.

A Legal Study on the Admissibility of Latent Fingerprints Evidence — Focused on Comparative Legal Study on the Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony and Its Reliability —

A Legal Study on the Admissibility of Latent Fingerprints Evidence — Focused on Comparative Legal Study on the Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony and Its Reliability —

Psychological expert witness testimony and judicial decision making trends

Despite the establishment of the Daubert standard in 1993, the evidentiary criteria are rarely used as a basis for admissibility of expert witness testimony in the behavioral sciences. Ever since the promulgation of Frye and the Federal Rules of Evidence, controversy has surrounded the admissibility of expert testimony in courtrooms. There appears to be no existing uniform application of standards governing the admissibility of psychological expert witness testimony. Therefore, it is essential for the psycho-legal communities to explore judicial decision-making trends regarding psychological expert witness evidence. In this current research, psychological expert witness testimony and judicial decision-making will be explored. In preliminary examination, 97 criminal and civil case summaries from the LexisNexis Academic Database involved issues of admissibility. Analyses conducted by eight trained and paired coders revealed that reliability and assistance to the trier of fact were the most often cited reasons for admissibility in courts. Consistent with prior studies, it was also found that the most applied standards for admissibility of psychological evidence were the Federal Rules of Evidence. Interestingly, while the Daubert scientific criteria for admission of scientific testimony were mentioned, they were rarely utilized. A secondary analysis of 167 civil and criminal appellate cases indicated that the reliability of testimony (18% of all cases), ability to assist the trier of fact (17%), the expert witness' qualifications (17%), and the relevance of the testimony (16%) were the most commonly cited reasons for determining admissibility. A tertiary qualitative analysis focusing on these four categories then revealed eight major trends in admissibility of psychological expert evidence.

Visualization Tools, Argumentation Schemes and Expert Opinion Evidence in Law

New models of evidential reasoning have been closely tied in with the development of visualization tools in artificial intelligence, especially automated systems for argument diagramming. Surveying several models and visualization tools recently developed in artificial intelligence, this paper argues that any discussion of visualization methods or tools of this sort should focus on their suitability for visualizing argumentation schemes, including critical questions. The classic scheme, used in this paper to illustrate how schemes need to be a vital part of advancing argumentation technology in tools for evidence visualization in law, is that for argument from expert opinion. The visualization of argumentation schemes is illustrated using a new version of the scheme, which takes into consideration Supreme Court rulings on the admissibility of expert witness testimony.

Visualization tools, argumentation schemes and expert opinion evidence in law

New models of evidential reasoning have been closely tied in with the development of visualization tools in artificial intelligence, especially automated systems for argument diagramming. Surveying several models and visualization tools recently developed in artificial intelligence, this paper argues that any discussion of visualization methods or tools of this sort should focus on their suitability for visualizing argumentation schemes, including critical questions. The classic scheme, used in this paper to illustrate how schemes need to be a vital part of advancing argumentation technology in tools for evidence visualization in law, is that for argument from expert opinion. The visualization of argumentation schemes is illustrated using a new version of the scheme, which takes into consideration Supreme Court rulings on the admissibility of expert witness testimony.

Rape Trauma Syndrome: An Examination of Standards that Determine the Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony

ABSTRACT Specialized literature on women's reactions to rape was virtually non-existent before the emergence of the women's movement in the early 1970s. By speaking out publicly, however, advocates of the civil rights reform compelled the conception of rape trauma syndrome and a proliferation of research regarding the psychological reactions of rape trauma victims. This growth of psychological knowledge regarding the reaction of rape victims forced the courts to reexamine the standards relating to the admission of expert testimony as developed in the case Frye v. United States. As a result of this reexamination, courts have relied upon opposing standards of proof to determine the admissibility of rape trauma evidence such as those developed in section 403 and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and those outlined in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The purpose of this paper is to examine rape trauma syndrome as it is commonly understood by both the psychological community and the judicial system and to assess its applicability to the admissibility of expert testimony.

US Supreme Court decisions, expert testimony, and implant dentistry.

There have been 3 US Supreme Court decisions in the last 8 years that have established new rules of admissibility of expert witness testimony. These will have great bearing on the practice of oral implantology now and in the future.

Neurolitigation: A perspective on the elements of expert testimony for extending the Daubert challenge

Scientific expert witness testimony has the potential for affecting most court decisions in civil and criminal proceedings. Since experts were first utilized in English courts beginning in the 14th century, most contemporary courts struggle with seeking a balance between plaintiff and defense counsel allowing each party its day in court while taking into account the work which other courts have done previously in determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony. When these challenges present themselves in the courtroom, often other courts have approached these identical issues, many in proceedings involving the same expert(s). Confronted with these challenges, trial judges want to understand whether a new Daubert hearing must be held, deal with the issue from a clean slate approach or whether they must reinvent the proverbial wheel. Given these dilemmas, this exposition is based within a heuristic approach that will focus on the consideration of comprehensive data inclusion from an evidentiary foundation as it applies to expert witness testimony admissibility in neurolitigation. While the evidential force of FRE 702 specifically applies to admissibility of scientific evidence, it makes sense that along with scientific, objective data, inclusion of non-medical and other data in forming and admitting expert opinions, have mutual bearing upon the validity of opinions arrived at through neuropsychological assessment. It is these multi-data that should be factored into account when applying the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 scientific admissibility standard. Data from other relevant sources is just as vital as data obtained from objective measures, and co-exists with objective data. Without the integration of this information into resulting diagnostic data and opinions, one's methodology is open to scrutiny and can willfully be characterized as engaging in "junk science". Specific, pragmatic issues are discussed in order to avoid the plausible "junk science" question and to ultimately arrive at a factual and evidenced-based admissibility and reliability determination for the courts. Given the current standard, this article proposes an inclusionary method in neurolitigation as it would necessarily apply to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 which would extend to the integration of data outside medical and scientific information bases to establish accurate opinions for the trier of fact. In so doing, neuropsychological test data, non-medical data and expert testimony would be strengthened through inter-data consistency.

Separating the wheat from the chaff: The role of the vocational expert in forensic vocational rehabilitation

This article discusses prerequisites for becoming an effective vocational expert witness by exploring the consequences of recent Supreme Court rulings on the admissibility of expert witness testimony. To address these issues, the author provides a discussion of: (a) The standards for admissibility of expert witness testimony; (b) the relevance of these standards to vocational expert testimony; (c) the resources used by vocational expert witnesses to arrive at their conclusions; and (d) the types of litigation cases in which vocational experts are utilized.

Admissibility of Human Factors Expert Testimony in Light of Daubert

The 1993 Supreme Court decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. created new, more stringent rules for admissibility of expert witness testimony based upon “scientific” knowledge as opposed to expert testimony based upon “technical or other specialized” knowledge. Because human factors professionals may testify on the basis of either of the two categories, they should be aware of the requirements for admissibility of both categories. Each time one is engaged as a potential expert witness, the human factors-ergonomics professional needs to determine the basis of the testimony he/she is about to provide and to notify the client attorney accordingly. This lecture describes the evolution of requirements for admissibility of both kinds of expert testimony. It also discusses the implications of additional requirements imposed upon all expert witnesses by the 1993 amendment of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Domestic Violence and Spousal Homicide: The Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony in Trials of Battered Women Who Kill their Abusive Spouses⋆

This article presents a review of the problem of domestic violence in Australia and, in particular, focuses on battered women who kill their abusive spouses. The experience of domestic violence is described in terms of the “cycle of violence” which appears to operate in abusive relationships. Four precipitating circumstances are discussed to further describe underlying psychological processes. Argument is advanced for the admissibility of expert witness testimony to trials of battered women who kill, as a means of providing insights and explanations not otherwise likely to be available in such cases.