Carney v Newton: expert evidence about the standard of clinical notes

In Carney v Newton [2006] TASSC 4 the Tasmanian Supreme Court heard a claim that the defendant breached his duty of care by failing to properly diagnose and treat a node positive carcinoma in the plaintiff's breast tissue. At trial, argument turned on the actual dialogue that took place during the initial consultation, with significant reliance on the clinical notes of the defendant. The court gave considerable weight to "expert" witnesses in ascertaining the acceptability of the defendant's conduct concerning the maintenance and interpretation of his clinical notes. This raises important questions in relation to proof of quality of medical records as part of the current professional standard of care, as modified by recent legislation in most jurisdictions.     

The expanding role of expert psychological evaluations and testimony in Hague child abduction litigation

Hague Convention cases are a growing niche in forensic assessments. These cases focus on returning children, or preventing their return, after international abductions, by one of the parents, has occurred. This article focuses on the legal underpinnings of the Hague Abduction Convention, the “affirmative defenses” that may be invoked to prevent a return order, including “grave risk of harm,” “mature objection”, and the “well settled defense.” The article will also focus on the increasing roles that forensic evaluators play in these matters, the distinction between the role of forensic experts in custody proceedings and Hague cases, and the inherent limitations present in these unique kinds of evaluations.     

Organizational downsizing and age discrimination litigation: the influence of personnel practices and statistical evidence on litigation outcomes

The present study examined relationships between reduction-in-force (RIF) personnel practices, presentation of statistical evidence, and litigation outcomes. Policy capturing methods were utilized to analyze the components of 115 federal district court opinions involving age discrimination disparate treatment allegations and organizational downsizing. Univariate analyses revealed meaningful links between RIF personnel practices, use of statistical evidence, and judicial verdict. The defendant organization was awarded summary judgment in 73% of the claims included in the study. Judicial decisions in favor of the defendant organization were found to be significantly related to such variables as formal performance appraisal systems, termination decision review within the organization, methods of employee assessment and selection for termination, and the presence of a concrete layoff policy. The use of statistical evidence in ADEA disparate treatment litigation was investigated and found to be a potentially persuasive type of indirect evidence. Legal, personnel, and evidentiary ramifications are reviewed, and a framework of downsizing mechanics emphasizing legal defensibility is presented.     

Appeal rate and caseload: evidence from civil litigation in Korea

Courts of modern democratic societies have generally implemented appeal procedures to correct potential errors in ruling. However, considering the time and effort that both litigants spend, availability of an appeal cannot be better than reaching the correct judgment in the original case. This difficulty raises the policy issue of how to reduce the rate of appeals and improve welfare of litigants. In this paper, we assert that lower caseloads allow judges to expend more time and effort on each case, contributing to lower appeal rates. Analysis of court-level data from Korea corroborates our inference.     

Constitutional limitations of the privacy framework advanced in Eisenstadt v. Baird and Roe v. Wade

This paper examines the role of framing in advancing a progressive sexual and reproductive rights agenda. U.S. Supreme Court decisions including Griswold v. Connecticu and Eisenstadt v. Baird helped establish legal precedent invoking a ＂privacy framework＂ for subsequent cases including Roe v. Wade （as well as Doe v. Bolton and, more recently, Lawrence v. Texas）. This paper highlights the limitations of the privacy framework while exploring more potentially efficacious frames.     

论专家证据的性质与地位

专家证据的主客观统一性、事实针对性和证明相对性的特点,决定了专家证据具有证据资料、证据方法的性质.由于诉讼的过程就是运用证据查明案件事实的过程,现代诉讼中,一切事实必须用证据加以证明,这一观念早已经成为一项重要的"证据裁判原则"或者"证据裁判主义"的诉讼原则.法官通过借助专家发表意见来协助其认定案件事实,专家证据就成为作为证据材料引入到诉讼中的必然,并且具有查明案件事实,解读其他证据,鉴别和认定其他证据的诉讼功能.     

Weakening forensic science in Spain: from expert evidence to documentary evidence

An amendment in 2002 to the Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure converted into documentary evidence the expert reports prepared by official laboratories aimed at determining the nature, weight, and purity of seized drugs. In most cases, experts are spared from appearance before the courts. This is likely to be extended to other forensic fields. After an overview of criminalistic identification in current forensic science, the objectivity and reliability concepts used by jurists and scientists are considered by comparing the paradigm of individualization with that of likelihood. Subsequently, a detailed critical study is made on the above-mentioned Spanish legal reform, and a comparison is made with the decision on the Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts case as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the reform is in compliance with the Spanish Constitution, it is at odds with science, in particular regarding the logic underpinning the scientific evaluation of evidence.     

Heterodoxy, iconoclasm and spuriousness: the limits of novel expert evidence

A difficult issue arises for courts' decision-making at common law and under statutory evidentiary regimes when expert opinions are significantly unorthodox, iconoclastic or methodologically flawed. This editorial analyses the relevant evidentiary principles and the Australian jurisprudence on the subject, giving particular attention to the decisions of the South Australian Supreme Court in R v Parenzee [2007] SASC 143 and R v Parenzee [2007] SASC 316 in which expert opinions about the existence, identifiability and transmissibility of HIV and its relationship to AIDS adduced on behalf of the defence in a criminal trial were found to be seriously wanting. A variety of factors indicative of low probative value in expert opinions are distilled.     

The admissibility and persuasiveness of expert evidence

Parenting plan evaluators are expert witnesses who offer their opinion. Courts in common law jurisdictions generally do not accept evidence of an opinion as it is not considered to be reliable evidence from which to establish a fact. An exception to that general principle is expert opinion evidence. In short, an opinion from a person with specialized knowledge or expertise about the area in which they are an expert may be sufficiently reliable to form an evidentiary basis from which to make a finding of fact, provided the opinion meets certain criteria. These criteria will be discussed in this article, as well as what is relevant, reliable and persuasive evidence. The relevant legal principles will be examined in an historical and contemporary, theoretical and practical context. The authors reflect on their considerable experience as consumers of expert evidence and apply this to parenting plan evaluations, as well as considering future challenges in the field.