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 1,171 records · Page 65Linked to original sources
PubMed1996

[Development of expert assessment in the malpractice lawsuit from the viewpoint of the judge].

The expert testimony in medical malpractice suits is being criticized until today. The most important objection: The medical experts do not obey their duty to be impartial; they are reluctant to testify against their colleagues regardless of the merits of the plaintiffs' case. But owing to ignorance they often violate further duties they have to comply with as experts, too. The medical profession in the past neglected the instruction-of physicians, who act as experts in malpractice cases. But judges are also responsible for the situation: Not in all cases they do pay enough attention to the selection, instruction and questioning of the medical expert. Many mistakes made in the field of expert testimony meanwhile are recognized and eliminated. Nevertheless seminars for the further instruction of physicians and lawyers are urgently necessary in order to improve the medical expert testimony.

Criminal Law↗
PubMed2002

Inconsistency in evidentiary standards for medical testimony: disorder in the courts.

Several recent decisions by the US Supreme Court have strengthened the ability of federal courts to consider medical testimony regarding injuries associated with exposure to toxic substances. Judges are expected to examine the basis of all expert testimony before it is introduced at trial to ensure that it meets the same standards of intellectual rigor that professionals use outside the courtroom. However, courts have been inconsistent in measuring this testimony against the standards of medical practice, especially when courts consider testimony that is not supported by clinical trials or epidemiological studies. A number of courts have required standards for expert testimony that exceed those that physicians use in ordinary clinical decision making. In this article, we illustrate such inconsistencies across federal courts by contrasting different decisions in cases involving similar facts and expert testimony. We argue that there may be good reason to require a standard of admissibility that exceeds the standards of ordinary clinical decision making, but such requirements are not faithful to the mandate of the Supreme Court. Courts with especially demanding standards are misled if they believe that they are fairly representing medical practice. Physicians should respond by correcting courts' misinterpretations of medical practice and assisting in the development of legal standards that encourage thoughtful and informed consideration of medical testimony by judges and juries.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed1996

Trial by jury; a pilot study of juror perception of mental health professional testimony in NGRI pleas for first degree international homicide.

The authors present a pilot statistical study of the way in which jurors perceived psychiatric/psychological expert testimony in ten court trials for first degree intentional homicide in which a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect had been entered. The reader is offered a short history of the insanity defense, of the trial by jury, and a discussion of the desired professional and personality prerequisites looked for in choosing a mental health expert. The study is based on a detailed protocol devised by two of the authors--a forensic psychiatrist and a psychologist--assessing various parameters of the professionality and demeanor of the experts on the basis of a statistically valid number of juror responses to the questionnaire. The results show that the jurors perceived the expert testimony as a useful, but not determinant factor when reaching their verdict. This is consonant with the definition of the rationale for using expert testimony as given by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

[Prognostication of expert testimony-labor outcomes in the treatment of open fractures of the shin bones].

In the process of clinical and expert examinations of 202 patients with crus bone open fractures, treated by conservative methods, it has been determined that good and satisfactory results have been obtained with 82 (40.6%) victims. At primary examination 92 (45.5%) patients were given the 11 group of invalidism and 28 (13.9%) patients were given the III group of invalidism. In order to decrease the number of expert mistakes, exclude the cases of unsubstantiated groups of invalidism determination and reduce the duration of the doctor's certificate term for victims of the given category, the authors propose to use 3 variants of prognostication of the expert--labour terminations of these damages. The number of the expert mistakes at primary examination of the patients, owing to the proposed method, has come to only 1.4%.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

The (near) irrelevance of Daubert to criminal justice and some suggestions for reform.

Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc should have an extraordinary impact on criminal litigation, because there is rarely a criminal trial that does not rely on some form of expert testimony. In fact, it is almost irrelevant. Despite the frequency of prosecution proffered scientific and expert testimony in criminal cases, Daubert is rarely invoked to challenge it. In civil cases, when expert testimony is challenged in criminal proceedings, the outcome could not be more different. Because most violent crimes are committed by the poor, their court appointed advocates--overworked and under-financed--are not up to the challenge. In the absence of a system of effective representation, Daubert will not improve scientific evidence in criminal cases. The only way to guard against the misapplication of forensic science is to impose controls and reforms long before the cases come to court.

Criminal Law↗