The Scientist or Engineer as an Expert Witness

The Scientist or Engineer as an Expert Witness

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 1-209

  Speight, James G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO   (Trinidad and Tobago)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85122905739     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Book

References (107)

1. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2008. Annual book of standards. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
2. Balabanian, D. M. 1987. Medium v. tedium: Video depositions come of age. Practicing Law Institute/Litigation 328. Videotaped record of a deposition.
3. Bauman v. Centex Corp., 611 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1980). Facts relied on are of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field.
4. Beggs, G. J. Novel Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Rights Litigation. American University Law Review October (1995).
5. Berkshire Mutual Ins. Co. v. Moffett, 378 F.2d 7 2 d10 07 (5th Cir. 1967). Testimony of witnesses.
6. Bradley, M. D. 1983. The scientist and engineer in court. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union.
7. Brent, R. 2006. The Daubert decision. Pediatrics 118:2222-2225.
8. Brewer, S. Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process. 107 Yale Law Journal 1535 (1998).
9. Brownstein, D. A. 1993. Law for the expert witness. Ann Arbor, MI: Lewis Publishers.
10. Broyles, K. E. Taking the Courtroom into the Classroom: A Proposal for Educating the Lay Juror in Complex Litigation Cases. 64 George Washington Law Review 714 (1996).
11. Bryan v. John Bean Division of FMC Corp., 566 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1978). Expert's reliance on facts and data supplied by third parties.
12. Cecil, J. S., and T. E. Wiliging. 1993. Court-appointed experts: Defining the role of experts appointed under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. In Reference manual on scientific evidence, ed. S. Cecil. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center.
13. Centola, G. D. 2004. Discovery of experts who are not expected to testify at trial. Mealey's Emerging Toxic Torts (February 6). http://www.rivkinradler.com/rivkinradler/Publications/newformat/200402centola.shtml
14. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Green, 174 F.2d 55 (8th Cir. 1947). Testimony of witnesses.
15. Clifford, R. C. 1991. Qualifying and attacking expert witnesses. Santa Ana, CA: James Publishing.
16. Collins, M. B. Taking the Deposition (and Getting It Right). 90 Illinois Bar Journal 323 (2002).
17. Cooper, J., E. A. Bennett, and H. L. Suckle. 1996. Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior 20:379.
18. Cowbell, S. E. Pretrial Mediation of Complex Scientific Cases: A Proposal to Reduce Jury and Judicial Confusion. 75 Chicago-Kent Law Review 981 (2000).
19. Cranor, C. 1993. Regulating toxic substances. New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Cranor, C. 2005. Scientific inferences in the laboratory and the law. American Journal of Public Health 95:S121-S128.
21. Danois, D. 1995. Computer Animation Helps Win Cases: By Visualizing Complex Evidence, Juror Comprehension Rises. 18 Pennsylvania Law Weekly S8 (1995).
22. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Co. 113 S.Ct. 2728, 2741-2743, 125 L.Ed.2d 469, 482-485 (1993).
23. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995).
24. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., United States Supreme Court No. 92-102.
25. Dewitt, J. S. 1991. Novel scientific evidence and the juror: A scientific psychological approach to the Frye-relevancy controversy. PhD thesis, University of Nevada, Reno. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI, 1993.
26. Dewitt, J. S.Juries and Experts: Sensing and Comprehending in Cases That Hinge on Expert Testimony. 3 Nevada Lawyer 18 (1995).
27. Doelle v. United States, 309 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1962). The power of a trial judge to appoint an expert of his or her own choosing.
28. Epstein, E. S. 2001. The attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, 4th ed. Chicago: Section of Litigation, American Bar Association.
29. Feder, H. A. 1991. Succeeding as an expert witness. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
30. Freedman, M. H. 1990. Understanding lawyers' ethics. New York: Bender Publishers.
31. Fugitt v. Jones, 549 F.2d 1001 (5th Cir. 1977). The power of a trial judge to appoint an expert of his or her own choosing.
32. Furst, A. 1995. The Frye rule is out: Is junk science in? Journal of the American College of Toxicology 14:61-68.
33. Furst, A. 1997. The toxicologist as an expert witness. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
34. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States, 640 F.2d 328 (Ct. C1. 1980). The power of a trial judge to appoint an expert of his or her own choosing.
35. Gering, J. E. 2002. Handbook of federal civil discovery and disclosure, 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group.
36. Gillers, S. 1979. The rights of lawyers and clients. New York: Avon Books.
37. Gleeson, J. G. 1993. Science in the courtroom: Does Daubert warrant a change? Mealey's Toxic Torts 2(3).
38. Goodman, J. 1986. Probabilistic scientific evidence: Jurors' inferences. PhD thesis, University of Washington. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI, 1987.
39. Gray v. Shell Oil Co., 469 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 943 (1973). Testimony of witnesses.
40. Hack S. 2005. Trial and error: The Supreme Court's philosophy of science. American Journal of Public Health 95:S66-S73.
41. Handberg, R. B. Expert Testimony on Eyewitness Identification: A New Pair of Glasses for the Jury. 32 American Criminal Law Review 1013 (1985).
42. Haney v. Mizell Memorial Hospital, 744 F.2d 1467 (11th Cis. 1984). An expert is allowed to express an opinion even if it embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the fact finder.
43. Hartford Fire Ins. v. Cagle, 249 F.2d 241 (10th Cir. 1957). Testimony of witnesses. Harvard Law Review. Developments in the Law: Confronting the New Challenges of Scientific Evidence. 108 Harvard Law Review 1481 (1995).
44. Haydock, R. S. 2002. Discovery practice, 4th ed. New York: Aspen Law & Business.
45. Huber, P. 1991. Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the court room. New York: Basic Books, Perseus Books Group.
46. Imwinkelried, E. J. The Standard for Admitting Scientific Evidence: A Critique from the Perspective of Juror Psychology. 28 Villanova Law Review 554 (1983).
47. Imwinkelried, E. J. Judge Versus the Jury: Who Should Decide Questions of Preliminary Facts Conditioning the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence? 25 William and Mary Law Review 577 (1984).
48. Jacobs, M. S. Testing the Assumptions Underlying the Debate about Scientific Evidence: A Closer Look at Juror "Competence" and Scientific "Objectivity." 25 Connecticut Law Review 1083 (1993).
49. Jasanoff, S. 1995. Science at the bar. Law, science and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Law's knowledge: Science for justice in legal settings. American Journal of Public Health. 95:S49-S58.
51. Johnson, M. T., C. Krafka, and J. S. A. Cecil. 2000. Expert testimony in federal civil trials: A preliminary analysis. Federal Judicial Center, Washington, D.C., 20002-8003. www.fjc.gov Expert witnesses may deliver expert evidence about facts from the domain of their expertise.
52. Juhnke, D. H. 2005. Discovery of databases in litigation. Computer Forensics Inc. http://www. forensics.com/pdf/Database_Discovery.pdf
53. Kaufman, H. H. 2001. The expert witness: Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: What can be done? Science and Justice 41:7-20.
54. Klapmeier v. Telecheck International, Inc., 482 F.2d 247 (8th Cir. 1973). Testimony of witnesses.
55. Koppenhaver, K. M. 1990. How to be a credible witness. Available from Forensic Document Examiners, P.O. Box 324, Joppa, MD, 21085.
56. Lolie v. Ohio Brass CG., 502 F.2d 741 (7th Cir. 1974). Testimony by experts.
57. Louis, D. E. 1982. Guidelines for expert witnesses. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 32:1029-1030.
58. Maatschappij Voor Industriele Waarden N. V. v. A. O. Smith Corp., 590 F.2d 415 (26 Cir.1978). Testimony by experts.
59. Mahle, S. 1999. The impact of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on expert testimony: With applications to securities litigation. Florida Bar Journal April.
60. Malone, D. M., and P. T. Hoffman. 2001. The effective deposition: Techniques and strategies that work, rev. 2d ed. Notre Dame, IN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.
61. Martiniak, C. 2002. How to take and defend depositions, 3d ed. New York: Aspen Law & Business.
62. Matson, J. V. 1990. Effective expert witnessing. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.
63. McElhaney, J. W. 2003. Deposition goals: Develop a plan to get what you're after from witnesses in discovery. ABA Journal 89:30.
64. Montoya, J. A Theory of Compulsory Process Clause Discovery Rights. 70 Indiana Law Journal (1995).
65. Moran v. Ford Motor Co., 476 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1973). Testimony by experts.
66. Morris, W. A. 1990. The chemist as an expert witness. Chemist 7:21.
67. Nichols v. Marshall, 486 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1973). Testimony of witnesses.
68. Noona, J. M., and M. A. Knoerzer. 1989. The attorney-client privilege and corporate transactions: Counsel as keeper of corporate secrets. In The Attorney-Client Privilege under Siege. Tort and Insurance Practice. Lake Buena Vista, FL, May 10-14.
69. Pandia.com. A short and easy search engine tutorial. http://www.pandia.com/goalgetter/
70. Ponder v. Warren Tool Corp., 834 F.2d 1553 (10th Cir. 1987). An expert is allowed to express an opinion even if it embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the fact finder.
71. Randolph v. Collectramatic, Inc., 590 F.2d 844 (10th Cir. 1979). Testimony of witnesses.
72. Raschke, H. H. 2007. Discovery ordered from consulting (nontestifying) expert. Property Insurance Law Committee Newsletter, American Bar Association Spring.
73. Rice, P. R. 1999. Attorney-client privilege in the United States, 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: West Group.
74. Rodriquez v. Olin Corp., 780 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1986). Facts relied on are of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field.
75. Rose Hall, Ltd., v. Chase Manhattan Overseas Banking Corp., 576 F. Supp. 107 (D.C.Del. 1983), afffd, 740 F.2d 956-958 (3d Cir. cert. denied, 469 U.S.). Facts relied on are of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field.
76. Saks, M. J. Scientific Evidence and the Ethical Obligations of Attorneys. 49 Cleveland State Law Review 421 (2001).
77. Sanders, J. Scientifically Complex Cases, Trial by Jury, and the Erosion of Adversarial Processes. 48 DePaul Law Review 355 (1998).
78. Schutz, J. S. The Expert Witness and Jury Comprehension: An Expert's Perspective. 7 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 107 (1997).
79. Schutz, R. J., and M. R. Lueck. Computer Animation Tutors Jury; In Complex Litigation, High-Tech Graphical Presentations Help the Jury Understand Difficult Issues. 18 National Law Journal C1 (1995).
80. Scott v. Spanjer Bros., Inc., 298 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1962). The power of a trial judge to appoint an expert of his or her own choosing.
81. Sherman, J. D. 1983. Women as expert witnesses: Trials and tribulations. Trial August:47-48.
82. Shipp v. General Motors Corp., 750 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1985). Testimony by experts.
83. Shuman, D. W. 1996. Assessing the believability of expert witnesses: Science in the jury box. Jurimetrics 37:23.
84. Smith v. Hobart Manufacturing Co., 185 F. Supp. 751 (D.C. 1960). Testimony by experts.
85. Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1988). An expert is allowed to express an opinion even if it embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the fact finder.
86. Speight, J. G. 2001. Handbook of petroleum analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
87. Speight, J. G. 2002. Handbook of petroleum product analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
88. Thomas, W. A., ed. 1974. Scientists in the legal system: Tolerable meddlers or essential contributors? Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Press.
89. Tinkham, T., and W. J. Wernz. 1993. Attorney-client privilege, confidentiality, and work product doctrine in Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: Dorsey & Whitney.
90. United States v. Barker, 553 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1977). Testimony by experts.
91. United States v. Baskes, 649 F.2d 471 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1000 (1981). Testimony of witnesses.
92. United States v. Battle, 859 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1988). An expert is allowed to express an opinion even if it embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the fact finder.
93. United States v. Jackson, 688 F.2d 1121 (7th Cir. 1982). Testimony of witnesses.
94. United States v. Rizzo, 492 F.2d 443 (95th Cir. 1974). Testimony of witnesses.
95. United States v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 416 F. Supp. 313 (DCNY 1976). Expert's reliance on facts and data supplied by third parties.
96. United States v. Sowards, 370 F.2d 87 (10th Cir. 1966).
97. United States v. Wysocki, 4, 57 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 859 (1972). Testimony by experts.
98. Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 68 F.R.D. 397 (D.C.1975). Testimony by experts.
99. Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 646 F. Supp. 1420 (E.D. Tex. 1986), afffd, 826 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1987). Facts relied on are of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field.
100. Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1987). Facts relied on are of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field.
101. Walker, L., and J. Monahan. Daubert and the Reference Manual: An Essay on the Future of Science in Law. 82 Virginia Law Review 837-857 (1996).
102. Wang, C. C. K., and H. E. Parker. 1984. How to be an effective expert witness. Chemical Engineering News February 20:87-90.
103. Watts v. Cypress Hill, No. 06 C 3348, 2008 WL 697356 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2008). An expert report can be denied if the report does not include the basis and reasons for the expert's opinion(s).
104. White, J. S. 2000/2001. Selecting and retaining experts. Northern California Register of Experts and Consultants, the Bar Association of San Francisco, ix-xi.
105. Withers, K. J. Undated. Is digital different? Electronic disclosure and discovery in civil litigation. http://www.kenwithers.com/articles/bileta/elecdisc.htm
106. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 505 F. Supp 1313 (D.C. Pa. 1980). Facts relied on are of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field.
107. Zweifach, L. J., and G. Zweifach. 1994. Preparing to take and taking the deposition. Practicing Law Institute/Litigation 507.