Scientific expert witnesses cross-examine own values

1983 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Cunningham ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Expert Witnesses

A Trial Consultant's View of the Medical Expert Witness

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 7-10
Author(s):  
Deborah Rutt ◽  
Kathyrn Mueller
Keyword(s):  
Nonverbal Communication ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Good Teacher ◽  
Medical Expert ◽  
Medical Terms ◽  
Medical Issues

Abstract Physicians who use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) often serve as medical expert witnesses. In workers’ compensation cases, the expert may appear in front of a judge or hearing officer; in personal injury and other cases, the physician may testify by deposition or in court before a judge with or without a jury. This article discusses why medical expert witnesses are needed, what they do, and how they can help or hurt a case. Whether it is rendered by a judge or jury, the final opinions rely on laypersons’ understanding of medical issues. Medical expert testimony extracts from the intricacies of the medical literature those facts the trier of fact needs to understand; highlights the medical facts pertinent to decision making; and explains both these in terms that are understandable to a layperson, thereby enabling the judge or jury to render well-informed opinions. For expert witnesses, communication is everything, including nonverbal communication that critically determines if judges and, particularly, jurors believe a witness. To these ends, an expert medical witnesses should know the case; be objective; be a good teacher; state opinions clearly; testify with appropriate professional demeanor; communicate well, both verbally and nonverbally; in verbal communications, explain medical terms and procedures so listeners can understand the case; and avoid medical jargon, finding fault or blaming, becoming argumentative, or appearing arrogant.

Challenges in Forensics Practice and Ethics for Expert Witnesses

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Hornick ◽  
Hal W. Hendrick ◽  
Robert Kennedy ◽  
Kenneth Laughery ◽  
David Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Expert Witnesses

Adversarial Medical and Scientific Testimony and Lay Jurors: A Proposal for Medical Malpractice Reform

1995 ◽  
Vol 21 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 281-300
Author(s):  
Jody Weisberg Menon
Keyword(s):  
General Theory ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Malpractice Reform ◽  
The Right ◽  
Scholarly Attention ◽  
Scientific Testimony

Pleas for reform of the legal system are common. One area of the legal system which has drawn considerable scholarly attention is the jury system. Courts often employ juries as fact-finders in civil cases according to the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved … .” The general theory behind the use of juries is that they are the most capable fact-finders and the bestsuited tribunal for arriving at the most accurate and just outcomes. This idea, however, has been under attack, particularly by those who claim that cases involving certain difficult issues or types of evidence are an inappropriate province for lay jurors who typically have no special background or experience from which to make informed, fair decisions.The legal system uses expert witnesses to assist triers of fact in understanding issues which are beyond their common knowledge or difficult to comprehend.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document