More evidence that innocent parents are in prison over infant deaths [Emily Bazelon, Slate; earlier here, etc.]
Posts Tagged ‘expert witnesses’
Iowa sued on charge of subconscious bias
Class action lawyers are suing the government of Iowa on an theory that “subconscious” bias resulted in employment discrimination against black employees and job-seekers. “The plaintiffs — up to 6,000 African-Americans passed over for state jobs and promotions dating back to 2003 — do not say they faced overt racism or discriminatory hiring tests.” Instead, they are relying on the work of an expert witness who is the developer of something called an Implicit Associations Test meant to measure subconscious bias. The controversy invites courts to revisit some issues of statistical and indirect proof that came up, without necessarily being resolved, in the landmark Supreme Court case of Wal-Mart v. Dukes. [AP via Justin Shubow, FedSoc Blog]
Law school roundup
Many links that tend to harmonize with arguments made in Schools for Misrule, along with a few others:
- Judges criticize law reviews: “The high bench vs. the ivory tower” [Richard Brust, ABA Journal]
- “The fervor of the sixties penetrated law schools quite passionately” [Ann Althouse quoting an introduction to clinical legal education]
- More on forthcoming Brian Tamanaha book, Failing Law Schools [ABA Journal]
- “The Coming Crash in Legal Education: How We Got Here, and Where We Go Now” [Richard W. Bourne, SSRN via Kenneth Anderson/Volokh] How law, medicine and architectural schools joined the academy [Richard Neumann, Jr./SSRN via Caron]
- How lucrative are the sidelines a lawprof can develop, such as expert witness work? It varies greatly, but one star’s NYC condo is for sale for $15.9M [Julie Zeveloff, Business Insider]
- “Lawsuits against law schools weak: experts” [Reuters]
- “Obama hugging Derrick Bell” video: neither newsy nor likely to damage the President’s image, and why again is Prof. Bell supposed to be a more alarming connection than Prof. Ogletree himself? [Breitbart, Hinderaker, Cooke/NRO, and an HLS reminiscence from David French at NRO]
February 8 roundup
- Popular proposal to curb Congressional insider trading (“STOCK Act”) could have disturbing unintended consequences [John Berlau, CEI “Open Market”] A contrary view: Bainbridge.
- 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, yet 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]
“Dressing psychiatrists like wizards on the witness stand”
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)
Who was that court-appointed expert again?
“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]
October 28 roundup
- 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]
Liability for negligent expert witnesses?
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.
“Twisted ethics of an expert witness”
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.
Faulty forensics, child death division
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.