Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “EXPERT TESTIMONY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,135 records · Page 63Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Industrial/organizational psychology and the federal judiciary: expert witness testimony and the Daubert standards.

This research examined judicial perceptions of the field of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, explored how judges evaluate and weigh I/O psychology expert witness testimony, and scrutinized the use of the Daubert factors in judicial assessments (of social scientific evidentiary reliability. In a mail survey, federal judges were randomly presented with one of four prototypical descriptions of I/O psychology expert witness testimony in civil age discrimination in employment litigation. Judges were found to be relatively unfamiliar with the field of I/O psychology, and few had previously heard or read the testimony of an I/O psychologist. Sixty-six percent of the federal judges rated themselves at least moderately likely to admit the expert's testimony at trial, regardless of the testimony scenario presented. Judges rated the evidence overall as relevant, moderately reliable, moderately probative, and prejudicial. Both judicial familiarity with the field of I/O psychology and prior experience with I/O testimony were found to be positively related to likelihood of admitting the evidence. Manipulations of the scientific foundation for the expert testimony did not substantially affect admission decision. Judges ascribed the most importance to the general acceptance Daubert factor in their evaluation of evidentiary reliability. Implications for the science and practice of I/O psychology in the legal system are presented and discussed.

Age Factors↗
PubMed2002

Guidelines for expert witness testimony in medical malpractice litigation. Committee on Medical Liability. American Academy of Pediatrics.

The interests of the public and the medical profession are best served when scientifically sound and unbiased expert witness testimony is readily available to plaintiffs and defendants in medical negligence suits. As members of the physician community, as patient advocates, and as private citizens, pediatricians have ethical and professional obligations to assist in the administration of justice, particularly in matters concerning potential medical malpractice. The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that the adoption of the recommendations outlined in this statement will improve the quality of medical expert witness testimony in such proceedings and thereby increase the probability of achieving equitable outcomes. Strategies to enforce ethical guidelines should be monitored for efficacy before offering policy recommendations on disciplining physicians for providing biased, false, or unscientific medical expert witness testimony.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed2007

The impact of negative forensic evidence on mock jurors' perceptions of a trial of drug-facilitated sexual assault.

Legal concerns with regard to the adverse impact of a negative toxicological screening for date-rape drugs in a case of drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) were the focus of a recent Canadian case (R. v. Alouache, 2003). To assess the impact of a negative forensic report, as well as the impact of expert testimony explaining the many factors that may contribute to a negative outcome, participants (N=171) received a written trial stimulus in which the forensic evidence (negative report, negative report plus expert testimony, no negative report and no expert testimony control) and the complainant's beverage consumption (alcohol, cola) were systematically varied. Results indicate that a negative finding in the absence of expert testimony produced greater verdict leniency and more favourable evaluations of the defendant's case. In contrast, no differences were found between the case in which the expert testified and a case in which the negative report and expert testimony were omitted.

Canada↗
PubMed1999

Expert witness testimony: An update.

This update provides an overview of the current state of expert witness testimony regarding malpractice cases. Many trials are reduced to a battle of the experts and many physicians advertise their credentials and expertise in hopes of attracting lucrative cases. This article focuses on what constitutes an expert witness, medical organizations oversight, the peer review process, and physician immunity.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed1997

[Analyses of expert's testimonies about 22 mental patients occurred in trip].

This article reviewed the expert's testimonies about 22 mental patients involving in cases of murder and harm. Of these patients, 20 are male, 2 female. Their mean age is 31 +/- 9.72% of them are peasant and non-regular workers. The results showed that all actions of murder and harm were induced by the direct effect of auditory hallucination and disturbance of consciousness, lacking premediated murder and self-protection. The people attacked are mostly strangers and passengers. All of these patients were considered non-responsibility and non-ability legally. The problems about distinguishing features and clinical diagnosis of the diseases were discussed.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Admissibility of scientific evidence in courts.

In its 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow opinion, the United States Supreme Court articulated an entirely new set of criteria for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. In its 1999 Kumho Tire v. Carmichael opinion, the Court extended Daubert's general holding to include non-scientific expert testimony as well. Most modem litigation relies upon the testimony of experts and this testimony can play a dispositive role in litigation. In all parts of the case, liability, causation and damages, lawyers are winning cases by using newly available techniques, suggested by Daubert and Kumho Tire, to exclude the expert testimony that links damages to the act or omission for which their client has been found liable. Our article contains medico-legal analysis of cases, beginning in the application of Israeli case law which discusses the Daubert Court's holding and explaining the scientific principles that the Court cites. The Daubert introduction links to a brief discussion of the Court's 1999 extension of Daubert to non-scientific testimony. We present a two-part model for evaluating the admissibility of scientific evidence--internal and external--in the Israeli courts. The internal examination of the scientific evidence evaluates its reliability by examining the content of the evidence and by checking that its conclusions correspond to the research methods of scientific literature. The court also has to review the abilities and skills of the expert witness. If the evidence passes the internal evaluation, the court will apply an external evaluation by examining whether the scientific evidence coincides with the other evidence presented to the court according to the specific rules of the law applied to the particular case.

Disclosure↗