Talk:Expert witness

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SkeeballChamp, Castrome.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kshen7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Error

The article Ultimate_issue_(law) states "The position under English law is different from that in the United States as there is no rule preventing an expert from giving an opinion on the 'ultimate issue' in England and Wales." That contradicts the point "Ultimate Issues" in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.235.35 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article would benefit from better references and considerable clean-up. Arllaw (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions unanswered by the article

I looked this up because i had a couple of questions, none of which were answered by the article. In my opinion, they should:

  • Are expert witnesses retributed (ie, paid)? If yes, by whom (the court, the party who called them to testify, ..)?
  • Can an expert witness be forced to testify against his or her will (subpoenaed), like eye witnesses?

93.33.237.41 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I removed two external links because neither contributes substantially to the article (one is talking about requirements for expert witnesses for medicine in Calfornia, the other one lists some common sense for selecting an IT expert) and both look more like money-making schemes than useful information:

Algae 18:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added an external link. The link discusses how different states have weighed in on suing an expert for changing his mind. It is directly relevant to the expert witness topic. Dabrousseau (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Simplified Example

The "simplified example" refers to expert perjury, not expert witnessing. I tried to replace it with a more appropriate one.

200.108.22.28 14:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you add a section? I keep trying to add a section and someone keeps deleting it (sigh!)

  • Wikipedia is not a directory per WP:FIVE, so there is no need to add "Expert Witness Sites and Directories" section. Further adding links to a section like this could be construed as spam Corpx 05:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the external links

Okay, the current version of the article (as of 00:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)) has the following eleven external links.

  1. JurisPro Expert Witness Directory - Comprehensive free online directory of expert witnesses in thousands of areas of expertise.
  2. Expert Witness White Paper - Authoritative white paper on finding and research expert witnesses.
  3. Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials: A Preliminary Analysis (pdf) (Federal Judicial Center, 2000)
  4. Legal Articles about Experts and Expert Witnesses
  5. The Use of Expert Witnesses in Cases Involving Sexual Assault (pdf) (Violence Against Women Online Resources, 2005)
  6. Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy. Daubert-The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You've Never Heard Of (pdf)
  7. Ronald L. Melnick. A Daubert Motion: A Legal Strategy to Exclude Essential Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Litigation (pdf) American Journal of Public Health, June 2005.
  8. Expert Witness Institute
  9. Michael Blanchard & Gabriel Chin, Identifying the Enemy in the War on Drugs: A Critique of the Developing Rule Permitting Visual Identification of Indescript White Powders, 47 American University Law Review 557 (1998)
  10. Kenton K. Yee, Dueling Experts and Imperfect Verification, 28.4 International Review of Law and Economics, 246-255 (2008)
  11. Canada's equivalent caselaw -R. v. Mohan, 1994 CanLII 8 (ON C.A.)----
  12. Expert Witness Case Studies -Example Case Studies by Expert Witnesses----

Comments

I think that per our external links policy – and a measure of common sense – a lot of these should probably be placed elsewhere in the article, or just removed altogether.

Links 1 and 8 appear to be organizations (one US and one UK) which provide primarily promotion and directories of expert witnesses. I'm going to trim these entirely, as such directories are readily found using Google, there isn't any obvious criterion to judge why we would include one such directory and not others, and an exhaustive listing would be prohibitively large.

Link 2 was added at the same time as Link 1, and at least one of its authors is affiliated with the same witness directory company. It opens with a number of legal and witness firm logos, and closes with a promotional message for the authors before you get to the footnotes. I'm not sure if it's a useful enough link to be included with the self-promotional content; I know that it shouldn't be plugging itself as 'authoritative'.

Link 3 is a nice summary and survey of expert witness involvement in the US legal system.

Link 4 is essentially a plug for a particular legal-article search engine. Their free search is mostly a teaser to encourage you to buy their paying products. It can go.

Link 5 examines the use of expert witnesses in a specific type of case from a particular perspective; I am concerned that it's more of a how-to guide for prosecuting sexual assault cases using expert witness testimony.

Links 6 and 7 look at Daubert use and applicability from general and specific standpoints, respectively. The latter link can probably go, though it might be an appropriate footnote elsewhere in the article.

Link 9 is to the abstract of a too-specific opinion and advocacy piece. It can go.

Link 10 is a game theoretic approach to expert witness testimony. It seems to get cited a lot.

Link 11 has little useful content, and none that is relevant to this article. (It just lists the names of the judge and litigants.) While I applaud any non-US coverage, a link to our own article R. v. Mohan would be much more useful. This external link can go.

Other thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable — just since yesterday, the trickle of self-promotional linking has continued, with the addition of one more expert witness directory ([1]). Naturally, the entry was added to the top of the list. I'm going ahead with the cleanup, per my comments above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Scientific evidence (law)?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge. NukeofEarl (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed the information in Scientific evidence (law) be merged into Expert witness for two reasons. First, the former page does not discuss "Scientific evidence" at all. Second, the info does outline some of the roles that might be played by an expert witness in a legal proceeding. As such, it might be possible to incorporate at least some of the info into the expert witness page.

Alternatively, the Scientific evidence (law) page might be considered for outright deletion (which I have not yet proposed). — RB Ostrum. 19:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Forensic Science

I have reverted the deletion of disciplines quite distinct from "forensic science". The methods of forensic engineering or accounting are quite diferent to those of conventional forensic scientists. More important, the courts recognise the separate disciplines as well.Peterlewis (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added information about qualification process, voir dire

I added a little information about establishing the competency of experts via review of credentials, as well as the possibility of voir dire by opposing counsel in the "Testifying experts" section. I believe that this better clarifies that not all witnesses are permitted to testify as experts, and that witnesses must first be qualified as experts prior to giving expert testimony, which was left ambiguous by the previous description of experts as just persons with "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge".

(128.237.202.148 (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

"Scientific evidence"

The bulleted info in this section reads more like an instruction manual than an encyclopedia article. Nor does it contain any references. The info on types of expert witnesses (Instructing, Reporting, Interpreting) could be useful if someone can cite sources for this info, but they aren't "scientific evidence". I propose deleting the bullet points and putting the witness types in a new section.

--Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info in question reproduced below:

Educating witness

Role

The educating witness teaches the fact-finder (jury or, in a bench trial, judge) about the underlying scientific theory and instrument implementing theory. This witness is an expert witness, called to elicit opinions that a theory is valid and the instruments involved are reliable. The witness must be accredited as an expert witness, which may require academic qualifications or specific training.

Judicial Notice: may moot the need for this witness. Qualifications: Relative experience based on complexity and subtlety of the subject-matter. This witness is on high plane of abstraction about the validity and reliability. Validity of Theory: Most jurisdictions require the theory used by an expert witness to meet certain qualifications before being used in court. The two most common are the Daubert and Frye tests.

Reporting witness

Reporting witness: Called after teaching witness leaves stand. Usually the laboratory technician who personally conducted the test. Witness will describe both the test and the results. When describing test, will venture opinions that proper test procedures were used and that equipment was in good working order.

Whether witness is qualified to conduct test. Could qualify as expert by virtue of "skill" gained through "experience & training" (FRE 702)—usually experiential, on-the-job training. Whether the witness received the correct object to be tested. (Chain of Custody satisfying FRE 104(b)). Whether the instrument(s) involved were in proper working order. Proof-test procedures were used. This split the courts, but under CL, most Jx require foundational proof that the witness used proper testing procedures on the occasion in question. Statement of test result: witness says what the results were. (This provides an excellent place to place physical evidence.) Remember, validating scientific evidence raises a logical relevance issue, as does the authentication (e.g. with enlarged photo).

Interpreting witness

Interpreting (Evaluating) Witness: Sometimes not needed 1) when test result is self-explanatory or pass-fail, or 2) when there is a statutory presumption obviating the need (e.g. drunk driving statutes and a test showing raised blood alcohol levels). Otherwise, this witness needed to complete the foundation. Syllogistic in nature: 1) states the interpretive standard (Rule or Major Premise), applies the standard to the test result (minor premise) and derives a conclusion.

Qualifications: a hybrid with both academic and experiential qualifications. Will base finding on the Reporting witness. [Experts may base opinion on 1) what personally observed, 2) facts that are the type of data customarily considered by practitioners of the specially and 3) hypothetically assumed facts.] Ideal if present when Reporter conducted test, but may be permitted in some jurisdictions.

Some jurisdictions won't accept opinion unless it is a "reasonable scientific opinion." Otherwise, need to consider if the witness can couch the opinion in terms of statistical probability. For example, in the casebook case of People v. Collins, 438 P.2d 33 (Cal. 1968), an elderly lady was knocked down and robbed by a blond who escaped in yellow car with bearded black man. Defendants met that rough description but could not be conclusively identified. Prosecutor used a mathematics professor to discuss the probability that this couple could be the guilty party. Lower court overruled Defendants' objection. Court held that 1) there was no foundational establishment of the underlying probabilities and 2) the fact that the Defendants' fit a probability model was irrelevant because it doesn't prove they did it.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Expert witness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

Please change the opening line "An expert witness, in England, Wales and the United States" to "An expert witness, in Britain, Australia and the United States" because the existing line leaves out Scotland and Australia whom use expert witnesses in their adversarial systems.

Please also add to your external links: 'Who was the first expert witness?' by Edward Price, https://witnessdirectory.com/newsdetails.php?id=79 LegalWitness (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have adjusted the lede, but reference to John Smeaton being the first expert witness is already covered in the article. I have added a book reference. BD2412 T 21:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

Change 

{{Evidence law}}
An '''expert witness''', particularly in [[common law]] countries such as the [[United Kingdom]], [[Australia]], and the [[United States]], is a person whose opinion by virtue of [[education]], [[training]], [[certification]], skills or [[experience]], is accepted by the judge as an [[expert]]. The judge may consider the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about [[evidence]] or about [[fact]]s before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion".<ref name="FRE702">{{cite web |title=Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702 |website=Legal Information Institute |publisher=Cornell Law School |access-date=21 November 2018}}</ref> Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise.<ref>''[[Black's Law Dictionary]]'', articles "Evidence", "Expert", "Witness"</ref> Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

To 

{{Evidence law}}
An '''expert witness''', particularly in [[common law]] countries such as the [[United Kingdom]], [[Australia]], and the [[United States]], is a person whose opinion by virtue of [[education]], [[training]], [[certification]], skills or [[experience]], is accepted by the judge as an [[expert]]. The judge may consider the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about [[evidence]] or about [[fact]]s before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion".<ref name="FRE702">{{cite web |title=Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702 |website=Legal Information Institute |publisher=Cornell Law School |access-date=21 November 2018}}</ref> An extremely effective expert witness is commonly referred to as a 'Tobin' witness. Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise.<ref>''[[Black's Law Dictionary]]'', articles "Evidence", "Expert", "Witness"</ref> Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

Billyanderson85 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Addition of "An extremely effective expert witness is commonly referred to as a 'Tobin' witness" which appears to be a biased reference about the Derek Chauvin trail. Terasail[✉] 23:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings

Please change the following headings to conform to MOS:NOBACKREF (and less importantly MOS:US and MOS:HEADCAPS), leaving anchors:

similar, but not identical, to § Qualifications of expert witnesses

Thanks. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sociomedical assessment" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sociomedical assessment and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 14 § Sociomedical assessment until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 02:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Legal Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 17 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Astrosfan1212 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Borchersg1, BronzeOwl8803, Winchester3324.

— Assignment last updated by User78632 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Research Experiment

The article that is already in place is very well detailed. It goes into the history of expert witnesses and how they came about. There is information about the laws explaining expert witnesses and their purpose in a case. It has little information on the qualifications of witnesses so I will try to expand upon that base using the United States v. Dukagjini case4 and the “When an Expert Witness is not an Expert” article1. There is also great information on the rules used to define experts like the Frye test, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Daubert standard. The article does a great job explaining the differences and similarities between different international and United States expert witnesses. It explained how in the American system the expert witnesses are more like the adversarial system that they are in. In other countries they are more for informational purposes. The expert witnesses are not for one side or the other. The book by Anthony Champagne discusses the effectiveness of expert witnesses versus not having one2. The main thing that I want to add to this article is the experiment done by McCarthy Wilcox and David Niamh5. This goes into great detail about the effects an expert witness has on the jury. This is something not discussed in the article at present. This will go in the American part of the article because as discussed the expert witnesses in other countries are not adversarial. I can also use this to explain why people do not like how American expert witnesses are used. I want to also use the Commonwealth v. Two Electronic Poker Games case3 to explain both how an expert witness can be used and when it is not relevant. This case has the rare ability to explain both issues. The article already has examples but not many and another will certainly help. There is no example of when an expert witness should not be and this along with the Leonard Berlin and David Williams1 article should explain this nicely.

Berlin, Leonard, and David M. Williams. “When an expert witness is not an expert.” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 174, no. 5, 2000, pp. 1215–1219, https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.174.5.1741215.

Champagne, Anthony, et al. "Expert Witnesses in the Courts: An Empical Examination." Judicature, vol. 76, no. 1, June-July 1992, pp. 5-10. HeinOnline, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/judica76&i=7.

Commonwealth v. Two Electronic Poker Game Machines, 502 Pa. 186, 465 A.2d 973, 1983 Pa. LEXIS 674 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September 21, 1983, Decided ). advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RRJ-19B0-0054-F0S2-00000-00&context=1516831. Accessed October 24, 2023.

United States v. Dukagjini, 326 F.3d 45, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 28049, 60 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 141 (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit December 27, 2002, Decided ).

Wilcox, McCarthy A, and Niamh Nic David. “Jurors’ Perceptions of Forensic Science Expert Witnesses: Experience, Qualifications, Testimony Style and Credibility.” Forensic Science International, Elsevier, 9 Aug. 2018, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073818304602.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2024

Changes to the Federal Expert Witness Rule 702: https://witnessdirectory.com/newsdetails/208/us-article-changes-to-the-federal-expert-witness-rule-702 LegalWitness (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Expert_witness"