Expert witness testimony: A trial judge's perspective

Neurologic Clinics

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 355-362

  Weinstein, J B ^a  

^a Eastern District of New York   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID; ASBESTOS; DIETHYLSTILBESTROL;

BREAST ENDOPROSTHESIS; EXPERT WITNESS; LAW; LAW SUIT; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL LIABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPETITIVE STRAIN INJURY; REVIEW;

EID: 0032934131     PISSN: 07338619     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0733-8619(05)70138-9     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Complex scientific issues trouble jurists at all levels of the court system, including the Supreme Court See Justice Stephen G. Breyer, The Interdependence of Science and Law , Address at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 10 (Feb. 16, 1998) (noting that the recent right-to-die, Benedectin, and PCB cases are typical of the scientifically complex and troubling cases reaching the high court).
2. Developments in the Law, Confronting The New Challenges of Scientific Evidence , 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1481, 1511 (1995) (recent studies indicate that juries are fully competent to grasp complex scientific evidence).
3. The standards for the admission of expert witness testimony vary with state and federal rules of procedure and evidence While most state laws conform with the federal rules of procedure and evidence, some do not. The same testimony from a given expert witness, therefore, might be admissible in some state courts but not in federal court and vice-versa. See Stephen J. Smirti, Jr., Karin McCarthy, Use of Experts in Complex Litigation , Practising Law Institute, 691 PLI/Comm. 197, 215–16 (Apr.–Aug. 1994). The discretion of the judge and varying assessments by different juries may also lead to variation in rulings from court-to-court.
4. A witness is qualified as an expert “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” Fed.R.Evid. 702.
5. Fed R.Evid. 702.
6. See generally Linda Sandstrom-Simard & William G. Young, Daubert's Gatekeeper The Role of the District Judge in Admitting Expert Testimony 68 1994 1457 Tul.L.Rev.
7. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
8. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993).
9. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 594 (1993).
10. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 593 (1993).
11. See General Electric Co. v. Joiner , 118 S.Ct. 512 (1997) (trial judges afforded wide, virtually non-reviewable discretion in admitting scientific evidence); see, e.g. , Christopher P. Murphy, Note, Experts, Liars, and Guns for Hire: A Different Perspective on the Qualifications of Technical Expert Witnesses , 69 Ind. L.J. 637, 641 (1994) (discussing various cases where trial judges allowed non-mainstream experts to testify).
12. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 594–95 (1993).
13. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 594–95 (1993).
14. Developments in the Law, Confronting The New Challenges of Scientific Evidence , 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1481, 1512 (1995) (“some judges feel ill-equipped to fulfill their new role as scientific gatekeepers”).
15. See Eva S. Wolf, A Selective Bibliography: Standards for Admissibility of Scientific Evidence , Record of Association of the Bar of the City of New York 201–212 (March/April 1998) (listing over 150 articles from the past five years in primarily legal journals dealing with admissibility standards for scientific evidence).
16. In re “ Agent Orange ” Prod. Liab. Litig. , 611 F. Supp. 1223 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (ruling as to admissibility of opt-out plaintiffs' scientific evidence and expert testimony), aff'd , 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied , 487 U.S. 1234 (1988).
17. In re Breast Implant Cases , 942 F. Supp. 958 (S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y. 1996) See extensive hearings on reports of Rule 706 scientific panel on file in my court under “Breast Implant Litigation”, 96 BI-1 (JBW)(E.D.N.Y.), held in United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, Master File No. CV 92-10000-S, before Hon. Sam C. Pointer, Jr., February 4, 5, and 6, 1999.
18. See Fed.R.Evid. 702, Adv. Comm. Notes (1972)(“An intelligent evaluation of facts is often difficult or impossible without the application of some scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. The most common source of this knowledge is the expert witness …”).
19. L Timothy Perrin, Expert Witness Testimony: Back to the Future , 29 U.Rich.L.Rev. 1389, 1414–15 (1995) (“The more effective the expert is in advancing the lawyer's case, the greater the likelihood the expert will be retained again.”).
20. This push-and-pull between the party and their expert witness has been referred to as an exercise in seduction See David Bernstein, Out of the Fryeing Pan and Into the Fire: The Expert Witness Problem in Toxic Tort Litigation , 10 Rev. Litig. 117, 119 (1990) (“the lawyer tries to get the expert to go as far as possible, while the expert tries to resist temptation”).
21. Patrick W. Brennan, The Use and Abuse of Expert Witnesses , 70 Wis. Law. 12 (October 1997).
22. Patrick W. Brennan, The Use and Abuse of Expert Witnesses , 70 Wis. Law. 12 (October 1997).
23. Patrick W. Brennan, The Use and Abuse of Expert Witnesses , 70 Wis. Law. 12 (October 1997); see also Francis A. Gilligan, Edward J. Imwinkelried, and Elizabeth F. Loftus, The Theory of “ Unconscious Transference ” : The Latest Threat to the Shield Laws Protecting the Privacy of Victims of Sex Offenses , 38 B.C.L.Rev. 107, 118 (1996) (discussing impeachment of witness credibility by establishing a deficiency in witness competency); Michael W. Mullane, The Truthsayer and the Court: Expert Testimony on Credibility , 43 Me. L. Rev. 53 (1991).
24. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B).
25. See, e.g. , Manual for Complex Litigation § 33.27, 335–28 (3d ed. 1995).
26. United States v. Gigante , 971 F. Supp. 755 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) (witness' testimony at trial taken by closed-circuit television).
27. See generally Margaret A. Hagen, Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice 299–301 (1997) (“That the fictional ‘facts’ and endlessly inventive ‘theories’ of clinical psychology are no more science than the artful constructs of astrology has been the subject matter of this whole book.”).
28. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, The Interdependence of Science and Law , Address at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 10 (Feb. 16, 1998) (noting that “two hundred years ago Lord Mansfield would sit with two experts next to him on the bench to explain technical commercial terms and practices”).
29. See AMA Defines Medical Testimony as Practice of Medicine , 1998 Andrews Toxic Chemicals Litig. Rep. 25610 (Apr. 13, 1998) (according to the AMA, physicians testifying in court are practicing medicine and their testimony should be peer reviewed).
30. See generally Eric G. Jensen, When “ Hired Guns ” Backfire: The Witness Immunity Doctrine and the Negligent Expert Witness , 62 UMKC L. Rev. 185 (1993).
31. See generally 3 Jack B. Weinstein and Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 706 (1988).
32. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, The Interdependence of Science and Law , Address at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 10 (Feb. 16, 1998).
33. See, e.g., In re Breast Implant Cases , 942 F. Supp. 958 (S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y. 1996).
34. See, e.g. , D.H. Kaye, Science in Evidence (1997); Joseph Sanders, Bendectin on Trial: A Study of Mass Tort Litigation (1998); Jack B. Weinstein, Individual Justice in Mass Tort Litigation (1995); Jack B. Weinstein et al, Evidence: Cases and Materials 962–1084 (9th ed. 1997); Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (1994); Symposium: International Perspectives on Scientific Evidence , 30 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 941 (1997).