The dichotomy of the expert witness

The expert on either side is either right, partially right, wrong, or wrong and dishonest. Even strongly opposed testimony is not evidence of dishonesty, although it is clear at least one expert is wrong. Some differences are the result of legitimate differences of opinion. However, the author has identified several categories of testimony that show dishonest intent. It is clear that the growth of financial incentives has increased the number of cases in which there are opposing experts. If some kind of corrective action is not taken, expert witnesses will no longer be an effective force in the legal system. A multidisciplinary testimony review board separate from the ethics function is clearly one answer to the problem.     

Notes on the psychologist expert witness

The psychologist who takes the witness stand to testify concerning the reliability of an eyewitness's testimony should assume the role of a watchdog, not a lapdog for the prosecution or an attack dog for the defense. The watchdog role is illustrated by a discussion of the decisions made by the author before accepting an invitation to testify as an expert.     

Educator of the court: the role of the expert witness in cases involving autism spectrum disorder

The role of the expert witness in legal contexts is to educate fact finders of the court who may have no background in the expert’s area. This role can be especially difficult for those who assist in cases involving individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As expert assistance on ASD is crucial to ensuring just outcomes for individuals diagnosed with ASD, knowledge on how expert witnesses perceive and approach their roles, and what factors may influence these perceptions, is essential. This qualitative research utilizes semi-structured interviews with a sample of expert witnesses in cases involving ASD, analyzed using a grounded-theory constant-comparative analytic approach. Data reveal that experts appear to view their roles in court as reconstructionists, educators, myth-dispellers, and most of all, communicators, actively using their testimony to fill these roles in cases. These results also allow for the development of a model that illustrates two areas that coalesce to affect how experts view their roles in court: (1) personal experiences of experts in cases in which they have been involved; and (2) influences outside experts’ personal experiences, such as their general opinions or observations regarding ASD and its relationship to the criminal justice system.     

Ten years in the life of an expert witness

American Courts are experiencing increased use of expert testimony based upon psychological research. Ten years ago, I began testifying about my own research on human perception, recollection, and eyewitness accounts. The growing acceptance of this testimony percipitated a backlash from some psychologists. This essay describes the chronology of these events, and their relevance for the more general use of psychological research as evidence in court.     

Practical measures to reduce medical expert witness bias

To minimize bias by the testifying clinician, particularly in professional liability cases, six practical measures should be used: 1. testify for both the plaintiff and the defense in different cases; 2. assess the merits of the case separately from agreeing to testify; 3. insist on reviewing all the records thoroughly; 4. develop a solid medical posture for each case; 5. review the case in a balanced, critical manner; and, 6. articulate carefully the standard of care in his words before expressing it in deposition or at trial. The expert must stay within his role and duty as "expert witness" to remain effective.     

On the legality of cannabis; the responsibility of the expert witness.

The controversy concerning the taxonomic status of the genus Cannabis has now advanced to a stage where the forensic scientist has limitations to his testimony in identification of "marihuana" plant material in jurisdictions where the law defines "marihuana" as Cannabis sativa L. Whether the genus Cannabis is monotypic or polytypic is as yet uncertain, but recent taxonomic reviews weigh heavily toward the existence of three or more species within the genus. The taxonomists or forensic scientists cannot, therefore, positively state for fact that C. sativa is the only species existing within the genus Cannabis. The popular concept of "marihuana" is actually based on the chemical characteristics of the plant Cannabis, rather than on the taxonomic classification. This is evident in its inclusion as a drug or hallucinogenic substance under Federal and local statutes. It is therefore proposed that "marihuana" be redefined legally to include all members belonging to the genus, in jurisdictions where legal definition warrants such an act, or that these jurisdictions follow the format set forth by Federal rulings.     

试论我国司法鉴定人的民事责任及其完善

本文阐述了鉴定人的涵义和世界主要国家鉴定人承担民事责任的不同模式,分析了我国鉴定人承担民事责任的理论基础,最后结合我国在鉴定人制度方面存在的问题,提出了完善鉴定人制度的一些建议。     

试论我国司法鉴定人的民事责任及其完善

本文阐述了鉴定人的涵义和世界主要国家鉴定人承担民事责任的不同模式，分析了我国鉴定人承担民事责任的理论基础，最后结合我国在鉴定人制度方面存在的问题，提出了完善鉴定人制度的一些建议。     

对刑事证人出庭作证理论基础的思考

刑事证人出庭作证制度是证据法研究的热点之一,国内在该问题技术上的研究多于理论上的探索,似乎在该问题的理论基础上已有广泛的认同,即对义务论的认同,然而义务论会带来诸如主体工具之说,自由功利之说的许多困惑,相反,权利论却有独特的优势,因此如果尝试从权利论的角度解读证人作证制度,或许会有所收获。     

医学会应做好准备 积极应对专家出席法庭

新修订的《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》于2013年起开始实施。当事人对鉴定结论有异议,要求鉴定专家出席法庭作证已是大势所趋。医学会开展医疗事故(医疗损害)鉴定,专家签名和出席法庭的问题已经没有讨论的必要,如何采取措施积极应对是医学会要迫切考虑解决的问题。医学会、相关专家学者对这一问题进行过多次讨论,提出了多种建议、过度办法以及应对措施,但具体如何操作,还需要在实践中总结和探索。笔者以为,塑造和培养一支优秀的鉴定专家队伍,保证鉴定结论客观、科学、公正,写好鉴定书分析意见,使鉴定结论令当事人信服,是解决这一问题的关键。     

Immunity from suit of an expert witness extends to disciplinary procedures

This important decision provides that the immunity from suitof an expert witness in respect of evidence he gives in a courtof law extends to disciplinary procedures.     

刑事证人作证制度的现状与完善

本文介绍了我国的刑事证人作证制度的现状 ,分析了存在的问题及其产生根源 ,并提出了完善证人作证制度的若干建议 ,即在立法中明确证人的义务 ,以及证人不履行义务应承担的责任 ,将拒证行为犯罪化 ,并且采取积极措施保障证人的有关权利 ,如保障证人及其亲属的人身权和财产权 ,补偿证人因出庭作证所遭受的经济损失 ,给予证人劳动保护等。     

The role of the sociologist as mitigation expert in a sentencing hearing

This paper examines Louisiana’s habitual offender statute and the role of a sociologist as a mitigation expert/criminologist in a specific case. The paper includes a summary of the habitual offender statute; the literature/theories used by the sociologist in his testimony; the trial judge’s decision; and the decision of the three-judge panel of the appellant court, particularly the minority opinion. The case has been returned to the district court for re-sentencing and the trial judge is under no obligation to accept the panel’s decision; but in practice must justify any lenient sentence. The use of sociology as mitigation in criminal cases generally is discussed. The author has worked in over 300 criminal cases since 1988, most of which were capital murder, but also include second-degree murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, rape, and habitual offender hearings.