Posts tagged as:

expert witnesses

February 8 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 8, 2012

  • Popular proposal to curb Congressional insider trading (”STOCK Act”) could have disturbing unintended consequences [John Berlau, CEI "Open Market"]
  • Here’s Joe’s number, he’ll do a good job of suing us: “Some Maryland hospitals recommend lawyers to patients” [Baltimore Sun, Ron Miller]
  • Bribing the states to spend: follies of our fiscal federalism, and other themes from Michael Greve’s new book The Upside-Down Constitution [LLL, more] “Atlas Croaks, Supreme Court Shrugs” [Greve, Charleston Law Review; related, Ted Frank]
  • “… Daubert Relevancy is the Sentry That Guards Against the Tyranny of Experts” [David Oliver on new First Circuit opinion or scroll to Jan. 23]
  • Goodbye old political tweets, Eric Turkewitz is off to trial;
  • State laws squelch election speech, and political class shrugs (or secretly smiles) [George Will]
  • Too bad Carlyle Group got scared off promising experiment to revamp corporate governance to curb role of litigation [Ted Frank, Gordon Smith] AAJ should try harder to use people’s quotes in context [Bainbridge]

{ 2 comments }

Checking out a published report, Erik Magraken contacted former New Mexico state senator Duncan Scott and found that it was true, the lawmaker had indeed introduced a legislative amendment in 1995 providing that:

When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts. Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant’s competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong…

The amendment — intended satirically, one should hasten to add –”passed with a unanimous Senate vote” but was removed from its bill before consideration by the state house and never became law. (& Coyote, Above the Law)

{ 8 comments }

“Macomb County Probate Court officials can’t explain how a man falsely claiming to be a medical doctor was allowed to decide whether people were mentally competent to handle their own estates and whether jail inmates needed mental health care.” [Detroit News]

{ 2 comments }

October 28 roundup

by Walter Olson on October 28, 2011

  • Self-parody watch: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Ct.) wants federal program to dispense free diapers [Fox News]
  • Trial-lawyer-friendly Florida Supreme Court could strike down state’s 2003 malpractice limits [Orlando Business Journal]
  • Don’t forget to thank Wal-Mart lobbyists for that debit fee charge [Mark Perry]
  • “Should insurers [be compelled by law to] pay for eating disorders?” [NYT "Room for Debate"]
  • Texas man drops suit against former fiancee [Above the Law]
  • “$75,000 Settlement for Muslim Teacher Denied 19 Days’ Unpaid Leave for Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca)” [Volokh]
  • Epidemiology for hire: “The Texas Sharpshooter Goes Free Range” [David Oliver]

{ 3 comments }

The recent British decision of Jones v. Kaney points in that direction, and one expert in Canada says, “Bring it on” (via Erik Magraken):

I like Britain’s approach because everyone, including expert witnesses, should be responsible for their actions. … I make an error or I provide care that’s below standard, I should be held responsible and I am. I don’t see why that responsibility should disappear because I’m now acting as an expert on the witness stand in court.

Horrifying Seattle Times investigation:

For a quarter century [Stuart] Greenberg testified as an expert in forensic psychology, an inscrutable field with immense power. Purporting to offer insight into the human condition, he evaluated more than 2,000 children, teenagers and adults. His word could determine which parent received custody of a child, or whether a jury believed a claim of sexual assault, or what damages might be awarded for emotional distress. …

His peers elected him their national president. But his formidable career was built upon a foundation of hypocrisy and lies.

{ 13 comments }

A Frontline/NPR/Pro Publica joint investigation makes a powerful case that prosecutors have drawn on the work of errant labs and expert witnesses to generate unreliable charges, and sometimes convictions, following unexplained deaths of children. Among the targets: numerous parents falsely accused of murdering their own children.

{ 1 comment }

Following a battle of the medical experts, a jury tells the UCF Athletics Association to pay $10 million in the death of a student player who “collapsed and died following offseason conditioning drills at the UCF football complex.” [Chicago Tribune]

{ 9 comments }

June 30 roundup

by Walter Olson on June 30, 2011

May 2 roundup

by Walter Olson on May 2, 2011

  • In suit over weird, elaborate online hoax, court allows fraudulent-misrepresentation claim despite lack of motive of tangible gain [Chi Trib]
  • Service animal rodeo: “A trained rat probably would have had a good case in California” [AP/Statesman-Journal] Broward County, Fla. backs lonely widow’s right to keep “prescription Chihuahua” against rules of condo board [AOL, Sun-Sentinel] Oklahoma: “Depressed Woman Fights to Keep Therapy Kangaroo” [Newser] Earlier on recent change in federal rules;
  • DahliaCrateLabel

  • Should lawmakers screen bills for constitutionality? Ms. Lithwick has trouble sticking to a position [AEternitatis]
  • Human-relations complaint leads to arrest of U.K. man for singing “Kung Fu Fighting” [MSNBC]
  • Barney Frank: Yes, let’s talk about med-mal reform [The Hill] Ringing the bell: Roundups of more big med-mal verdicts [White Coat, more]
  • “Expert Witnesses Stripped Of Immunity From Negligence Suits In The UK” [Erik Magraken]
  • “Sustainability”: an empty idea? Or perhaps actively wrongheaded? [David Friedman via David Henderson]

St. Luke’s Hospital in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley is suing a lawyer and law firm “for proceeding with cases that the attorneys [allegedly] knew were ‘baseless and lacking in evidence,’” and is also suing an expert for allegedly filing a “boilerplate” certificate of merit. The cases in question are among many filed claiming that patients were killed by notorious “Angel of Death” nurse Charles Cullen; hospitals say that while some of the suits were filed on behalf of actual Cullen victims, others piled on seeking compensation for bad outcomes that had nothing to do with the murderer. Damages for wrongful litigation are notoriously hard to win in American courts. [White Coat]

Fix the incentives that underlie the system’s pervasive failures, argues the journalist who’s exposed crime-lab scandals and expert unreliability in a series of widely discussed articles. [Reason]

{ 1 comment }

In dozens of prosecutions each year, parents or caregivers are charged after infants who died under their care have been found to display supposedly infallible indicators of abuse — in particular, subdural and retinal hemorrhage with brain swelling. Many convicted defendants stoutly maintain their innocence all along; others are sent to prison on the basis of equivocal “confessions”. Even when (as is common) there is no pattern of previous child abuse, it often happens that authorities remove other children from an alleged abuser’s home as legal action proceeds. Has the hope of using cutting-edge forensics to identify abusers wound up leading the authorities and courts to inflict new injustices? [Emily Bazelon, New York Times Magazine] More: Balko.

{ 7 comments }

February 7 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 7, 2011

{ 7 comments }

Autopsy forensics

by Walter Olson on February 3, 2011

NPR, ProPublica and FrontLine collaborate on an extensive investigation of the many problems with coroners’ and medical examiners’ role in death investigation.

Kevin at Lowering the Bar spots a promising new theory in a defense expert’s testimony, though it’s not clear the lawyers actually wound up making use of it. [Vail Daily, same at Denver Post]

{ 3 comments }

Jim Hood’s expert loyalty

by Walter Olson on September 9, 2010

The Mississippi Attorney General keeps defending a capital conviction based on dubious bite-mark testimony [Radley Balko, Reason]

August 26 roundup

by Walter Olson on August 26, 2010

{ 5 comments }