"An expert is an ordinary fellow from another town." (Mark Twain) Expert evidence in medical claims will be required to commence almost any case involving professional negligence, and as modern medical practice, in all of its guises, becomes increasingly more litigious, expert medical witnesses are required more frequently. Expert evidence is an essential element of advancing, or defending, a clinical negligence claim. There is a lack of guidance for physicians in this jurisdiction in how to prepare and act as an expert witness, to such an extent that the Medical Protection Society (MPS) has called for a wider pool of expert medical witnesses in the Irish courts system (1). This follows a recent warning from Mr. Justice Collins in a Court of Appeal judgement (2) that a significant change of culture on expert evidence was needed. The MPS has called on the Health Service Executive to support doctors in undertaking expert-witness training and to maintain a central list of experts (1). The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role and duties of the expert witness, by using guidance from various jurisdictions, while also discussing the penalties that may ensue if they are not fulfilled. Flawed evidence can lead to miscarriages of justice (3) and, in turn, to a lack of confidence in justice and a degradation of the rule of law. This is why expert evidence is absolutely fundamental to the rule of law, as flawed expert evidence can lead to a court acting in good faith but reaching an unsound decision. Physicians serving as expert witnesses must therefore fully grasp the scope and significance of their role-not only to uphold the law and maintain the integrity of their profession but, most importantly, to fulfil their duty to patients.

This research examines the legal liability of doctors in medical malpractice cases through the literature review method. The main focus of this study is to understand how professional standards and standard operating procedures (SPOs) affect the assessment of medical actions performed by doctors. The findings show that violations of these standards that cause harm to patients can lead to doctors being held legally liable both civilly and criminally. Proof in malpractice cases often faces technical challenges that require the role of medical expert witnesses. The legal system generally has a judgment mechanism through professional councils, as well as legal protection for doctors through malpractice insurance. This study suggests the need for supervision and continuing education to prevent future malpractice cases.

As doctors, you may be called to give evidence in court either as a treating practitioner providing factual observations or as an expert witness offering a specialised opinion. Regardless of your role, your primary duty is to assist the court impartially, with objective, unbiased information. As treating doctors, you present what you saw, heard, or observed during patient care, while as an expert witness, you offer analysis based on your clinical knowledge and must comply with the court requirements. Understanding courtroom procedures-examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination-is important, as is preparation and consistency in clinical documentation. Accuracy in patient history, timing, and note-taking can significantly impact the reliability of medical evidence. Ultimately, your evidence can play a vital role in a court's understanding of medical issues, and your contribution supports the fair and informed administration of justice.

There has been a drastic increase in the use of video teleconferencing (VTC) in judicial proceedings since the COVID-19 pandemic, which has sparked debate about the appropriateness of incorporating this new technology into courts’ routine operations. A systematic review of state laws on using video teleconferencing technology in criminal court proceedings shows courts across the United States are cautiously embracing the convenience of remote proceedings. However, legislators are more conservative about using video teleconferencing in higher-stakes proceedings such as evidentiary hearings and sentencing hearings, by either prohibiting the use or requiring the parties’ consent. Other aspects of state statutes include special rules for child witnesses, expert witnesses, and incarcerated individuals.

Constant exposure to trauma survivors can cause secondary trauma, also known as vicarious trauma (VT). Previous research revealed that VT affects psychologists and attorneys, although there is limited research pertaining to VT and psychologists who work in the field of law as expert witnesses. The current study examines the degree to which forensic psychology expert witnesses experience VT as well as the roles of psychological flexibility (PF), self-care, and burnout. Data were obtained from 83 forensic psychology expert witnesses through four self-report measures: Vicarious Trauma Scale, Mindful Self-Care Scale - Brief, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire, and Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey. The study found that PF, self-care, and burnout are associated with the severity of VT. It also revealed that PF mediates the relationship between VT and burnout; however, no support was found for self-care mediating the relationship between VT and burnout. It is likely that self-care is subsumed by the construct of PF (as improving one's PF can lead to increases in self-care behavior). Overall, this research underscores the need for forensic psychology expert witnesses to continue fostering their PF and making time for self-care activities to minimize the risk of burnout as the result of VT.

Eyewitnesses are often advised to write down their recollection of the event soon after it occurs. However, they sometimes omit details in the written note and recall them later, a phenomenon known as reminiscence. This research examined the impact of testimonial reminiscence and expert testimony on mock-jurors’ decision-making. Undergraduate students (N = 222) read a fictitious trial transcript, in which an eyewitness had written a contemporaneous note about the event. When testifying, the eyewitness either was consistent with the note or exhibited reminiscence. The transcript also included an expert witness testifying about eyewitness memory before the eyewitness testified, after the eyewitness, or not at all. Neither reminiscence nor expert testimony influenced juror verdicts; however, the reminiscent eyewitness was perceived to be significantly less credible than the consistent eyewitness. Expert testimony, regardless of when it was delivered, helped mitigate this by enhancing juror ratings of the reminiscent eyewitness’s credibility.

Previous research demonstrates that expert witness education and experience have an influence on mock juror perceptions of credibility. However, whether this relationship extends to cases involving the insanity defense remains unclear, leaving an important gap in the literature given the high stakes of such trials. The current study used an experimental design to examine the impact of expert witness knowledge (high vs. low) on perceived credibility and subsequent NGRI endorsement. Participants (N = 425) read a case summary and the credentials and testimony of the expert witness, completed questionnaires, and reported the likelihood that they would endorse NGRI for the defendant. Results indicated that, regardless of expert witness testimony, prior attitudes about the insanity defense (IDA-R) predicted NGRI endorsement. Specifically, positive attitudes towards the insanity defense resulted in an increased likelihood of NGRI endorsement. These findings underscore that juror attitudes toward the insanity defense, rather than expert witness characteristics, may be the decisive factor shaping NGRI endorsement. This highlights the need for courts to consider such attitudes during jury selection in NGRI cases, paralleling the practice of death qualification in capital trials.

This study aims to determine and analyze the validity of telephone conversation recordings as evidence in civil disputes. This research was conducted using the Normative research method, also called doctrinal legal research, which is often conceptualized as what is written in laws and regulations or law is conceptualized as a rule or norm that is a benchmark for human behavior that is considered appropriate. The results of this study are that telephone conversation recordings can be strong evidence in civil disputes as long as they are obtained legally, do not violate privacy rights, and are accountable for their authenticity. The legal force of electronic evidence in civil cases basically depends on how the evidence can be verified and proven authentic in court. If the validity of electronic evidence can be proven, for example through expert witnesses or digital devices that can confirm its validity, then it can be considered with almost the same strength as written evidence in this case. However, in practice, electronic evidence often has a weaker position compared to letters in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code, especially because electronic evidence can be more susceptible to forgery or manipulation.

Abstract International criminal courts and tribunals rely on a wide array of expert witnesses, themselves representing diverse professions. However, significant disparities exist in the deference these experts receive, often based on their field of expertise and perceptions of credibility. These variations reflect a more fundamental question: should courts ever defer to experts or should the courts be educated by them? This debate — deference versus education — ties into fundamental differences in procedural approaches, principally adversarial versus inquisitorial procedure. Thus, the emergence of a hybridized international criminal justice procedure adds a unique layer to the ongoing discussion. Therefore, this study — adopting an explicitly normative perspective — delves into the deference and education debate, distilling best practices, and applying the resulting criteria to the distinct set of practices for evaluating expert testimony within the international criminal justice field: practices that are shaped by the unique goals and norms of the international courts. The study interrogates these practices by considering the courts’ reference to explicit normative standards, the role of the trier of fact, and the utility of a division of epistemic labour. It concludes by recommending a hybrid epistemic approach that may enable judges to interact more ably with the wide range of experts encountered in the international criminal justice arena.

Expert Witness Versus Treating Physician

Complex nocturnal behaviour - issues with expert evidence and the duty to the court.

This paper examines how the process of judicial systems integrating forensic evidence into a traditional witness account in criminal cases can be performed by focusing on comparative judicial measures, the weight of evidence, and the resulting impacts on justice and trustworthiness. Using case law, judicial decisions, and the trial-testimonies of a diverse variety of jurisdictions, the analysis evaluates the guidelines used by the courts to determine the probative value of forensic science evidence (including DNA and ballistics, and even fingerprint evidence) side by side with testimonial ones, considering the aspects of credibility, consistency, and possible bias. The study also asks the questions of the tensions that arise when science is at odds or disputes the accounts by witnesses, and its nature of how the judges then settle such disputes upon their decisions. Using criteria like admissibility, credibility of an expert witness, cross-examination, and cross-examination, the paper describes current areas of law and the procedural protections that govern the incorporation of the different types of evidence. Finally, the paper suggests the recommendations intended to increase the level of integrity of adjudication systems, moralize fewer flawed convictions, and contribute to better citizen trust in criminal justice systems. The results demonstrate that even though it is important to state that forensic evidence has become more influential, the role of traditional testimony cannot be ignored, especially in cases where the scientific certitude is only debatable or doubtful.

ABSTRACT Our article ‘Lost in the mall? Interrogating judgements of false memory’ (Andrews and Brewin 2024) was the first to reanalyse transcripts from the false memory implantation paradigm and throw light on the nature of investigator‐based judgements of false memory. Commentaries on our report include several misrepresentations of what we did as well as some misconceptions about our methods, results, and conclusions. After addressing these, we discuss persistent concerns about the reliability, validity and generalisability of the paradigm and about the tendency for the results of false memory research to be exaggerated. These exaggerations sometimes later appear in expert witness reports and influence court deliberations.

IntroductionForensic psychiatry transcends legal and cultural boundaries across Europe, but specialization and training remain inconsistent. With freedom of movement in most European countries, psychiatrists accredited in one country can practice in others if they meet language requirements. Therefore, harmonizing psychiatric education and practice is crucial and aligns with the European Federation of Psychiatry Trainees (EFPT)’s goals.ObjectivesThis study aims to map the current state of forensic psychiatry education across Europe, focusing on its recognition as a specialty on its own or subspecialty, training structure, and financial implications. It also assesses whether general adult psychiatry (GAP) and child and adolescent psychiatry (CAP) trainees receive adequate forensic psychiatry education, identifying gaps and variations across countries.MethodsData was collected via an online survey distributed to European National Trainee Association (NTA) representatives in the EFPT through Google Forms in August 2024. Responses from non-European countries and incomplete entries were excluded. The final dataset was analyzed using SPSS 24.ResultsA total of 29 participants, including 24 GAP trainees (82.8%), 2 CAP trainees (6.9%), and 3 specialists (10.3%), from 20 European countries responded to the survey. Forensic psychiatry was recognized either as a specialty or subspecialty in 13 counctries (65%) with 20 (69%) of participants confirming its recognition. 38% reported forensic training lasts less than 1 year or lacks a formal program. Financial support varied as well, with some countries offering full subsidies, while others required trainees to cover costs. Forensic psychiatry was included in the training of 66.7% of GAP trainee and 50% of CAP trainees, though the depth of exposure differed. Notable gaps were found particularly in risk assessment, expert witness training, and competency evaluations.ConclusionsThis study reveals significant variation in the recognition, structure, and delivery of forensic psychiatry training across Europe. While some countries offer well-defined programs, discrepancies in accessibility and comprehensiveness persist. These findings highlight the need for standardized curricula to ensure consistent training. Enhancing forensic psychiatry education is crucial for preparing future psychiatrists and ensuring high-quality psychiatric contributions in legal contexts and harmonization of forensic training across Europe.Disclosure of InterestNone Declared

What is involved in being a nurse expert witness?

Sloman and Rabb found support for the existence of the community of knowledge (CK) effect, which occurs when individuals are more likely to report understanding and being able to explain even fake scientific information when told that an expert understands the information. To date, no studies have been conducted that attempted to replicate original findings, let alone test the presence of the CK effect in realistic, legal scenarios. Therefore, Study One replicated original CK effect studies in a jury-eligible M-Turk sample (N = 291) using both Sloman and Rabb’s experimental stimuli as well as new stimuli. Study Two then tested the presence of the CK effect using scientific testimony in a mock court hearing from a forensic evaluator (N = 396). Not only did the CK effect improve laypeople’s perceptions of the scientific information in court, but it also improved their perceptions of the expert witness’s credibility, increased the weight assigned to the scientific information, and increased the weight assigned to the expert testimony. This effect was mediated by participants’ perceived similarity to the expert, supporting the theory behind the CK effect. These studies have important implications for the use of scientific information in court, which are discussed.

Could you use your skills to be a nurse expert witness?

A number of the issues raised by Professor Kopelman in his Viewpoint are discussed and used to make recommendations that should enable psychiatrists better to assist the courts, uphold the expert witness's expectation of integrity, reduce the risk of judicial criticism and adverse publicity, provide clarity as to how to proceed when there is, or is perceived to be, a conflict between the duty as a doctor and the duty as an expert, particularly in cases involving safeguarding issues, and promote the medicolegal discourse necessary for the medical and legal professions to work together harmoniously in the interests of justice.

Educators, families, and policy actors rely on federal and state special education law to inform many decision-making processes. Vague eligibility criteria within the laws can result in conflict between school districts and parents. Resulting due process hearing decisions can have important implications for future practice. One area of particular ambiguity and inconsistency is the disability category—other health impairment—for which students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder may qualify. We examined outcomes of cases regarding disputes about eligibility for other health impairment where attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was considered, including judges’ decisions, rationales, and factors influencing their decision-making, as well as trends over time and location. The systematic search process yielded 202 relevant cases wherein the majority of judges’ decisions (67%) were in favor of the school district, often citing educational need, or lack thereof, in their rationale. The second most common rationale was the evaluation itself being deemed (in)appropriate. Parents who had an expert witness were almost four times more likely to prevail in their cases. We discuss implications for parents, practitioners, and policy.

Anesthesiology and Expert Witness Testimony.