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 1,387 records · Page 77Linked to original sources
PubMed1957

The medical expert.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed1957

Medical witness.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed1958

Silicosis.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed1992

Expert psychiatric evidence in sexual misconduct cases before state medical boards.

The growing problem of physician sexual misconduct has captured the attention not only of the medical and legal communities, but of the public as well. State medical boards, administrative agencies with generous rules of evidence and varying levels of expertise, face the difficult task of responding to patients' allegations of physician sexual abuse. This Article, based in large part on the author's survey of current state medical board practice, reveals an increasing reliance on expert psychiatric testimony to explain the behavior of complainants and accused physicians. Drawing analogies from the use of psychiatric evidence in child sexual abuse cases, the author examines the factors that boards must consider in determining the admissibility of expert testimony in physician sexual misconduct cases, and calls upon states to establish clear evidentiary rules to govern the use of such testimony in administrative hearings.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed2000

[Decision of German Supreme Court on July 30, 1999 relating to scientific evidence requirements for psychological expert opinion with respect to credibility of testimony and its consequences for future expert consultation].

Basically nothing has been changed by this significant, clarifying, establishing and, most important, determining decision of the Highest Federal Court concerning the specific methods long since applied by experts in the field of deciding whether or not a testimony is believeable. None the less such a decision through the higher courts was obviously long overdue because numerous opinions of experts utilized in court cases were reached by applying methods not free of fault. The psychological evaluation of the content of truth in a testimony in cases of sexual abuse will therefore still be established with help of a methodical procedure of steps made under the assumption that statements pertaining to personal experiences differ in quality from those resulting from imagination in their characteristics of reality.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction: continued dependence on past views.

This paper reviews the tobacco industry's litigation strategy for addressing the addiction issue through trial testimony by its experts, and opening and closing statements by its lawyers. Despite the fact that several companies now claim to accept, in varying degrees, the conclusions of the Surgeon General concerning tobacco addiction, the tobacco industry litigation strategy pertaining to addiction is essentially unchanged since that of the early 1980s when the issue emerged as crucial. The industry uses its experts and the process of cross-examination of plaintiff's experts to imply that the addictiveness of tobacco and nicotine are more comparable to substances such as caffeine, chocolate, and even milk, than to heroin, cocaine and alcohol. Furthermore, the tobacco industry contends that the definition of addiction has now become so broadened as to include carrots and caffeine and hence that any concurrence that smoking is addictive, does not imply that cigarettes are addictive to the standards that drugs such as heroin and cocaine are addictive. Finally, the industry has continuously asserted that tobacco users assumed the risks of tobacco since they understood that quitting could be difficult when they began to use, and moreover, that the main barrier to cessation is lack of desire or motivation to quit and not physical addiction. These positions have been maintained through the 2004-2005 US Government litigation that was ongoing as the time of this writing.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed1992

Dr Rogers' 'insanity detector' and the admissibility of novel scientific evidence.

The R-CRAS (Rogers' Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales) purports to be a systematic and empirically based approach to evaluations of criminal responsibility. This 'insanity detector' has been heralded as a reliable instrument in the resolution of the psycholegal controversies surrounding the plea of insanity. It is contended that, regardless of its possible scientific merit, most courts will find that the R-CRAS fails to satisfy the Frye test for admissibility of novel scientific evidence (that is, general acceptance by the relevant scientific community). Moreover, it is argued that the R-CRAS's potential for prejudice outweighs its probative value, in that it might unfairly bolster the testimony of the expert witness who relies upon it and might overwhelm the jury because of its 'aura of special reliability and trustworthiness'. Until such time as the R-CRAS does gain widespread acceptance and is shown to be sufficiently reliable to outweigh any potential prejudice (if ever), the author is of the opinion that forensic psychiatrists and psychologists may have to continue to conduct evaluations of criminal responsibility 'the old-fashioned way'. 'Truth does less good in the world than its appearances do harm' --La Rochefoucauld.

Expert Testimony↗