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 1,207 records · Page 67Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Admissibility of false-confession testimony: know thy standard.

The reliability of confessions is subject to a variety of factors, some of which give rise to expert testimony. To the degree that prosecutors construe the determination of reliability as an objective standard, they may attempt to bar testimony. Moreover, when the testimony is theoretical rather than clinical, there are additional challenges. Depending on jurisdiction, the admissibility of expert testimony on whether a confession was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is subject to a legal threshold such as the Frye or Daubert standard. The authors review a 2002 New Jersey Superior Court ruling that illustrates the forces that shape the admissibility of confessions.

Civil Rights↗
PubMed2005

Ten years of judicial gatekeeping under Daubert.

In the ten years since Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, the standards for admissibility at trial of expert testimony in general and scientific evidence in particular have become more demanding. Reviews of recent cases and empirical studies of federal judges' and attorneys' practices indicate that judges are more likely to consider the admissibility of expert evidence prior to trial, to inquire more deeply into the reasoning and methodology that supports the expert opinions, and to limit or exclude such evidence from presentation at trial. Studies of published cases confirm this finding. Recent cases consider more difficult questions arising from the differing methodologies used in various areas of science. The current legal framework that assesses admissibility in terms of professional practice outside the courtroom is poorly suited to cases that require expertise across a wide range of specialties and force judges to choose from among different scientific methodologies. Future research should focus on the pretrial screening of expert testimony and interactions between the attorneys and experts in shaping that testimony.

Drug Industry↗
PubMed2006

[Following up investigation of forensic psychiatry judicial expert mental testimony].

OBJECTIVE: To study different viewpoints to the conclusion and treatment, And the following up factors concerning social effect after the judgment of forensic psychiatry. METHODS: By letters, calls, visits and by investigation forms made by myself, 208 testimonied cases were followed up separately from judicial organ or other organizations and institutes, individuals testimonied or their family members, victims and their family members. RESULTS: Most testimonied individuals were married man of 30 years old or so whose average education were 4.84 years and testimonied by the public security organs. In criminal cases, violental criminals (129 cases, 83.77%) were much more than non-violental criminals (25 cases, 16.23%) and homicide criminals (44 cases, 28.57%) were most common in the former but civil cases were few. The rate of retstinvony was 2.93%. The testimonied individuals and their family members thought the condemn were appropriate (76.47%) for the people without criminal capacity and thought the condemn were appropriate (41.94%) or not appropriate (41.94%) for the people with criminal capacity. The opinions of the condemn for partial criminal capacity were between the former two cases. And they thought the condemn for 28 cases of non-guilty were appropriate (71.43%) and not appropriate (10.7%). 7 victims were dead. 10 victims were crippled. 10 victims restored to health. In 41 persons testimonied and set free with a verdict of "not guilty", 4 homicided again (4.87%), 2 set on fire (4.87%), 2 stealed (4.87%) and 3 had wrecked behavior (7.31%). CONCLUSION: So it is suggested that the department concerned should keep criminals with mental disorder under control and treatment.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1980

Psychological aspects of courtroom testimony.

As jurors in a criminal or civil trial listen to testimony, they construct in their minds an "image" of an incident that was never witnessed by them. Many psychological factors influence this mental construction and, consequently, the verdict. Research with experimental jurors has revealed: 1. The images that jurors construct are influenced by the particular words and phrases that are used in the testimony they hear. 2. Jurors tend to be overbelieving of certain types of evidence, such as eyewitness testimony. Jurors are particularly responsive to the confidence with which eyewitnesses relate their testimony, rather than to the likelihood that the testimony is accurate. 3. Expert testimony, particularly on the subject of the reliability of eyewitness accounts, can cause jurors to better scrutinize the evidence they hear.

Crime↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Practical application of the Injury Severity Score (ISS) in expert forensic testimony].

The retrospective analysis of the autopsy records of 50 homicides showed that the Injury Severity Score (ISS), a numerical scoring system initially developed to quantify the severity of injuries sustained in road traffic accidents, can also be useful for objectively describing and ranking the overall severity of trauma with regard to forensic issues. The present case report illustrates to what extent the ISS can help to assess the contribution of each assailant in homicides committed by several perpetrators. In the case presented the court was convinced that one perpetrator had inflicted four deep stab wounds to the victim's face (each with bony lesions), 2 stabs to the chest piercing the right lower pulmonary lobe and causing a haemothorax of 200 ml, an abdominal stab wound without involvement of a parenchymatous organ as well as multiple defence wounds of the arms. Thereafter, a second perpetrator was thought to have inflicted several heavy blows with a full water bottle causing severe contusions on the right side of the forehead, the chin, the left side of the face and a spider's web fracture of the frontal bone. Using the ISS an injury severity score of 24 was assigned to the first complex of injuries and a score of 10 to the second complex. The forensic conclusions with regard to prognosis and lethal outcome are discussed.

Abbreviated Injury Scale↗
PubMed2004

The case against differential diagnosis: Daubert, medical causation testimony, and the scientific method.

For the past decade, federal judges have been obligated to serve as gatekeepers and keep scientifically unreliable and irrelevant expert testimony out of the courtroom. The exacting evidentiary standards set forth in the landmark Daubert decision have had a significant impact on numerous areas of legal dispute. Toxic tort litigation, in particular, has been transformed by the standards. This Article reviews the Supreme Court's adoption of the scientific method as the standard for admissibility of expert testimony. It analyzes how a court's proper understanding of the scientific method can guide it in evaluating the different types of causation evidence presented in toxic tort litigation, both with respect to general and specific causation. Throughout this discussion and in the concluding section, the Article reflects the authors' firm's experience as national defense counsel in a series of product liability cases involving the prescription drug Parlodel, in which these evidentiary issues have been analyzed extensively.

Animals↗
PubMed1990

Preparation for court testimony in child abuse cases.

Medical expert testimony in child abuse cases is a socially essential task if children are to be protected from abuse. Accomplishing this task in an excellent way is an important challenge requiring attention to its ethical, legal, and administrative aspects as well as to technical medical considerations. As the field of child protection matures as a medical specialty, expertise in child abuse becomes increasingly definable; it is now sufficiently definable to allow courts to begin to separate those physicians who are specialists in the field from those who are not.

Child↗
PubMed2005

Evidence-based medicine and medicine-based evidence: the expert witness in cases of factitious disorder by proxy.

The UK media has recently devoted much attention to the role of expert witnesses in child protection cases. One or two particular pediatricians who have given expert testimony have been the subject of personal vilification and professional investigation. These cases raise questions about the use of medical expert testimony when there is real uncertainty in the scientific community and the emotional stakes are high. Do doctors use scientific evidence to make diagnoses in the same way that the courts use evidence to make judgments? The cases also raise questions about the personal credibility and trustworthiness of experts: should we allow ourselves to be seen as personally powerful witnesses? Are we responsible for how we are seen by the jury? In this article, these questions are addressed, with the conclusion that distress and anxiety about child maltreatment influences all the players in the justice process and may interfere with the process of justice.

Dangerous Behavior↗
PubMed2002

The physician expert witness and the U.S. Supreme court--an epidemiologic approach.

It is a fact of life that the physician is occasionally called upon to provide Expert Witness evidence. This is clearly distinct from evidence of a participatory nature where the physician is a party to the act by virtue of the doctor-patient relationship. The purpose of this presentation is to alert the physician to new criteria, imposed by the court, for acceptance of Expert Testimony. Prior to March 23, 1999, expert witness testimony fell into three categories, Scientific, technical, and other specialized knowledge. Scientific knowledge included the conclusions that could be subjected to analysis of a statistical nature, or could be validated by methodology such as epidemiologic criteria. Technical knowledge was based on factors such as mechanical or stress analysis utilized in engineering. Other "specialized knowledge" could be based on experiential data and information not necessarily subject to epidemiologic or other scientific analysis. Therefore, the physician presented his reasoning often based on years of professional practice and publication in journals of clinical practice. On March 23rd 1999, the Supreme Court of the United States changed the criteria for all categories stating that there is "no relevant distinction between 'scientific' knowledge' and 'technical' or 'other specialized knowledge' in Federal Rule of Evidence 702. This momentous decision [Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, (97-1709), 131 F.3d 1433) reversed.] referred back to a previous case [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 US. 579,589], which established four criteria based on methods of analysis for t he courts, and was now extended for all expert evidence. Thus the area of expert witness evidence was changed by this momentous act placing the judge as arbiter of all expert evidence, including that of the physician. This paper will offer a brief review and an analysis of the significance of this for the professional involved in the legal system as an expert witness.

Conflict of Interest↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The treating physician as expert witness: ethical and pragmatic considerations.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis is to apprise pain physicians of the ethical concerns and practical considerations that arise when a treating physician is called upon to testify as an expert witness in a legal proceeding involving his or her own patient. The provision of expert testimony in medico-legal proceedings has come under heightened scrutiny in recent years. When a physician testifies as an expert witness, such testimony is considered to be the practice of medicine, and hence subject to the same ethical and professional obligations as patient care. Increasingly, medical professional organizations have promulgated guidelines for such activities, and even implemented oversight mechanisms to review complaints concerning expert testimony by their members. Additional issues are raised when the expert witness is also the treating physician for the patient who is a party to the legal proceeding in which the expert testimony is offered. CONCLUSIONS: While it is not categorically unethical or inadvisable for a physician to testify as an expert witness in a medico-legal proceeding involving his or her own patient, such activity raises special issues and concerns. Prospective expert witnesses in such situations should be cognizant of these issues and insure that they have been adequately addressed before and during the testimony.

Bias↗
PubMed2005

Trial and error: the Supreme Court's philosophy of science.

Apparently equating the question of whether expert testimony is reliable with the question of whether it is genuinely scientific, in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993) the US Supreme Court ran together Karl Popper's and Carl Hempel's incompatible philosophies of science. But there can be no criterion discriminating scientific, and hence reliable, testimony from the unscientific and unreliable; for not all, and not only, scientific evidence is reliable. In subsequent rulings (General Electric Co v Joiner, 1997; Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael, 1999) the Court has backed quietly away from Daubert's confused philosophy of science, but not from federal judges' responsibilities for screening expert testimony. Efforts to educate judges scientifically, and increased use of court-appointed experts are, at best, only partial solutions to the problems with scientific testimony.

Drug Industry↗
PubMed2005

What has a decade of Daubert wrought?

There have been changes within the judicial system that may be attributable to opinions on the admissibility of expert testimony that began with the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. After surveying Daubert and subsequent related Supreme Court opinions, I examine a number of questions. Do the factors courts apply post-Daubert in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony make scientific sense? Has Daubert had an impact on the willingness of scientists to become expert witnesses? What do we know about Daubert's impact on improving science in the court room? What has been Daubert's effect on access to the courts? Does Daubert further public policy objectives of protecting the public against harm?

Drug Industry↗
PubMed1992

The expert witness in forensic psychiatry.

Forensic psychiatry operates at the interface of the Justice and Health systems and has been defined as: "That branch of psychiatry which requires special knowledge and training in the law as it relates to the mental state of the offender, or alleged offender" [1]. As a consequence of working in this area, psychiatrists are often called into court to give evidence as "expert witnesses". This article examines some of the professional and legal issues involved in providing expert testimony. Secondly, it aims to outline some practical guidelines for giving evidence in the court-room. The predominant focus is on criminal, rather than civil, proceedings in which the forensic psychiatrist gives expert testimony; however much of the information is also relevant to other psychiatrists and psychologists undertaking this role in the legal arena.

Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders↗
PubMed2004

Medico-legal practices in the fifteenth century Dubrovnik.

We analyzed the beginnings of medico-legal practices in Dubrovnik, using the first eight books of criminal records series Liber de maleficiis from the early 15th century. We also looked into the mechanisms of individual and public control of the issues such as the patient-physician relationship and the control of epidemics. At that time, surgeons rather than physicians reported wounds to the court of justice and, in most cases, provided medical expertise when requested by the authorities. Cold steel weapons were the usual instruments of violent offences, and the most frequently harmed part of the body was the head. The expert testimonies formally satisfied the requirements laid down in Dubrovnik normative acts of the time, but their medical content was poor and the vocabulary was a mixture of lay and professional. Although Dubrovnik medical practitioners wrote simple expert testimonies and did not perform forensic autopsy, their involvement in the control of violence and development of the legal system corresponded to the role played by physicians and surgeons in the leading continental European centers of the period.

Crime↗
PubMed2006

Pejorative testimony about opposing experts and colleagues: "fouling one's own nest".

Circumstances sometimes require expert witnesses under oath to express opinions about opposing experts or professional colleagues who work within their own professional, geographic, or organizational circle. This requirement poses some common problems that have not been well discussed in the literature. This article addresses some of those problems and suggests some useful solutions.

Expert Testimony↗