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 1,153 records · Page 64Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

Osteopathic physicians and expert medical testimony.

The US Supreme Court addressed the issue of expert medical and scientific testimony in the 1993 case Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The guidelines to be used as a standard for expert medical witnesses under Daubert differ from earlier standards used by many courts for more than 70 years. This commentary reviews the history of previous and current standards used to determine admissibility of medical testimony in legal proceedings and discusses the ramifications of these standards for osteopathic physicians involved in the medical malpractice process.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1993

Expert psychological testimony in cases of alleged child sexual abuse.

Concurrent with the rapid rise in allegations of child sexual abuse, psychologists are increasingly assuming the role of experts for the courts. In this position, a new and more controversial role is often assumed by the expert, that of psychological investigator. A review of the common legal contexts for such a role as well as the theoretical and empirical basis for the investigatory role is presented. Ethical issues are also considered. A literature review reveals that many assessment instruments do not meet jurisprudential standards. Suggestions for improving the role of psychological experts in the courtroom include educating the legal audience regarding the limits of psychological testimony, providing standards for qualifications of experts, and emphasizing the data-based probabilistic nature of psychological expert testimony.

Child↗
PubMed1997

The standard of care is not so standard.

Malpractice lawsuits affect most physicians at some point in their career. Proving that malpractice has been committed is based on substantiation of a variety of elements, including that the patient was rendered care that was "below the standard" of care. While many physicians believe that the "standard" will be judged objectively on the basis of published scientific sources and accepted conventions, the standard is established rather by the testimony of expert witness(es). It is the expert testimony that sets the standard and is proof of the standard. The testimony is open for acceptance or rejection by the judge or jury for a variety of nonscientific reasons. We review what the defendant doctor might expect regarding proof required to establish breach of the standard of care and what the prudent expert should be obliged to demonstrate.

Health Services↗
PubMed2001

On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. A new survey of the experts.

In light of recent advances, this study updated a prior survey of eyewitness experts (S. M. Kassin, P. C. Ellsworth, & V. L. Smith, 1989). Sixty-four psychologists were asked about their courtroom experiences and opinions on 30 eyewitness phenomena. By an agreement rate of at least 80%, there was a strong consensus that the following phenomena are sufficiently reliable to present in court: the wording of questions, lineup instructions, confidence malleability, mug-shot-induced bias, postevent information, child witness suggestibility, attitudes and expectations, hypnotic suggestibility, alcoholic intoxication, the crossrace bias, weapon focus, the accuracy-confidence correlation, the forgetting curve, exposure time, presentation format, and unconscious transference. Results also indicate that these experts set high standards before agreeing to testify. Despite limitations, these results should help to shape expert testimony so that it more accurately represents opinions in the scientific community.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law's scientific age.

The Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., holding that the admissibility of scientific evidence depends on its scientific merit, has made American law receptive to valid science to an unprecedented degree. We review the implications for psychology of the law's taking science seriously. We consider the law before Daubert, and the ways that Daubert as well as modifications to the Federal Rules of Evidence have affected the admissibility of expert testimony. We describe the ramifications of these changes for psychology used as authority to create a general legal rule, as evidence to determine a specific fact, and as framework to provide context. Finally, future prospects for improving psychological testimony are offered: Court-appointed experts will increase the psychological sophistication of judges and juries, and evidence-based practices on the part of psychologists will increase the sophistication of the expert testimony that they proffer in court.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed2004

A consideration of challenges to psychological assessment instruments used in forensic settings: Rorschach as exemplar.

In this brief primer, we provide an outline of key issues that will help psychologists organize and prepare their expert testimony. These issues include the need to obtain essential sources of research, a review of the actual legal standards regarding admissibility of test data in expert testimony, the nature of the expert relative to the assessment instrument in expert testimony, the nature of legal versus scientific debate, and the examination of appropriate qualifications of expertise when offering legal testimony. In addition, we use a summary of information contained in several recent articles to address challenges directed against forensic psychological testing. We use the empirical literature on the Rorschach as an exemplar in discussing these issues, as the admissibility of the Rorschach in particular has been challenged, and the issues frequently focused on with the Rorschach are equally applicable to other psychological measures. In this article, we provide essential sources of Rorschach research regarding several empirical studies that summarize important information and directly address previous criticisms of the measure.

Expert Testimony↗