Decision on Joint Defence Motion on Admissibility of Expert Witnesses/Expert Evidence and Filing of Notice Pursuant to Rule 94bis (B)(i) and (ii), on Re-Filed Defence Request for Disclosure, and on the Joint Defence Motion for Exclusion of Medical Information, Statistics and Abstracts Pertaining to Witnesses TF1-081 and TF1-188, 16 June 2005

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 698-718
Author(s):  
Emma Rowden ◽  
Anne Wallace

This article reports on empirical research conducted into the use of audiovisual links (videolinks) to take expert testimony in jury trials. Studies reveal ambivalent attitudes to court use of videolink, with most previous research focussed on its use for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Our study finds there are issues unique to expert witnesses appearing by videolink, such as compromised ability to gesture and interact with exhibits and demonstrative tools, and reductions in availability of feedback to gauge juror understanding. Overall, the use of videolinks adds an additional cognitive load to the task of giving expert evidence. While many of these issues might be addressed through environmental or technological improvements, we argue this research has broader ramifications for expert witnesses and the courts. The use of videolinks for taking expert evidence exposes the contingent nature of expertise and the cultural scaffolding inherent in its construction. In reflecting on the implications of these findings, and on the way that reliability, credibility and expertise are defined and established in court, we suggest a more critical engagement with the relationship between content and mode of delivery by stakeholders.


Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer

This chapter, which focuses on opinion evidence in criminal and civil cases in the UK, explains the rule on the admissibility of opinion, including expert opinion, as well as notice and disclosure in criminal cases under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014. The criteria for the admissibility of expert evidence, the responsibilities of expert witnesses, and the approach of the courts to new areas of expertise are examined in detail. It also considers the presentation of expert evidence, including the use of court-appointed experts, in civil cases under the Civil Procedure Rules, and, finally, examines the ultimate issue rule, which has been abolished by section 33(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1972.


2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-337
Author(s):  
Trang Phan ◽  
David Caruso

The ‘basis rule’ is, in general terms, a rule which restricts expert witnesses to giving opinion evidence in respect of which there is or will be proof, by other admissible evidence, of the facts and assumptions upon which the opinion is based. There has been no clear consensus as to whether the basis rule exists either at common law or under the Uniform Evidence Legislation, or whether the rule goes to admissibility or weight. This article examines the jurisprudence, with a particular focus on the recent High Court decision of Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar. The authors argue that the controversy surrounding the basis rule has been the result of a misunderstanding and misconstruction of the rule. They argue that the conflict may be resolved by understanding the basis rule as simply a rearticulation, in the specific context of expert evidence, of the requirement that evidence must be relevant to be admissible. The weight of that expert evidence remains to be determined in accordance with ordinary principles.


2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (4) ◽  
pp. 360-375
Author(s):  
KRZYSZTOF JÓŹWICKI

Evidence in the form of an expert opinion is usually of key importance for settling a pending case in any type of proceedings. In some cases, the role of the expert witness is closer to that of a judge rather than that of a witness, since a judge who does not have special knowledge often has to use evidence given by an expert to render a judgement. For this reason, issuing a false expert opinion results in a very high risk of delivering a wrong and unfair decision in a given case, which in turn has a negative impact on the social perception of the functioning of the justice system. In the Polish Criminal Code, criminal responsibility for issuing a false opinion is stipulated in Article 233 (4) and (4a) of the Penal Code. At the same time, despite a very large number of reports of suspicion that a crime has been committed by an expert witness, only a negligible number of investigations result in a bill of indictment and a conviction, which causes virtual impunity of perpetrators and has a negative impact on the functioning of criminal justice. Due to the diagnosed research gap in this area, the need to investigate and describe the phenomenon of issuing false opinions by expert witnesses, both in normative and criminological terms, on the basis of empirical research, has been clearly seen. The main objective of the research has been to characterise the phenomenon in question on many levels and to determine its real extent, its etiology and symptomatology. An additional aim of the research has been the verifi cation of research hypotheses and recognition of the normative sphere of the expert witness’s status, expert evidence, and principles of responsibility for issuing false opinions. The research fi ndings have resulted in proposals of solutions aimed both at limiting the phenomenon of issuing false opinions and more effective prosecution of perpetrators of crimes under Article 233 (4) of the Penal Code, which in turn may translate into more effi cient functioning of the entire justice system, as expert witnesses and their work are an extremely important aspect of thereof. The conducted research has fully confi rmed the research hypotheses and precisely indicated defective areas of expert evidence, and consequently the need to introduce immediate legislative changes. Some of the research conclusions and de lege ferenda postulates were implemented into the amended provisions of the Penal Code in 2016, which fully confi rms their legitimacy. Unfortunately, there is still no legal act of statutory rank which would comprehensively regulate the status of expert witnesses and expert evidence.


Author(s):  
Torremans Paul

This chapter examines the question of proof of foreign law and particularly the onus of proving that the foreign law is different from English law. Foreign law is treated as a question of fact, but it is ‘a question of fact of a peculiar kind’. To describe foreign law as one of fact is apposite, in the sense that the applicable law must be ascertained according to the evidence of witnesses, yet there can be no doubt that what is involved is at bottom a question of law. The courts have concluded that a mistake as to foreign law is to be regarded as a mistake of fact. This chapter first explains how foreign law is proved, including the use of expert witnesses, before turning to witnesses who can prove foreign law. It also considers the role of the English courts under the Civil Procedure Rules in dealing with expert evidence.


2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-284
Author(s):  
Rajan Nathan ◽  
Simon Medland

SummaryPsychiatric expert witnesses instructed to undertake assessments of defendants charged with murder should be familiar with the partial defences of diminished responsibility and loss of control. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 enacted major amendments to the partial defence of diminished responsibility and introduced a new defence of loss of control to replace the provocation partial defence. In this article, the changes to the law are described with particular focus on the implications for the psychiatric assessment.


1984 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Kenny

SynopsisThe law about expert evidence is unsatisfactory: it gives scope for the expert to usurp the role of judge, jury and parliament; it brings the professions of the experts into disrepute; and it sets juries the impossible task of sorting pseudo sciences from genuine ones. The law should be reformed by changing statutes which force expert witnesses to testify beyond their science, by taking the provision of expert evidence out of the adversarial context, and by removing from the courts the decision whether a nascent discipline is or is not a science.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin ◽  
Mehera San Roque ◽  
Rory McFadden

Can procedural reforms effectively regulate expert witnesses? Expert procedures, like codes of conduct and court appointed experts, remain controversial among academics and courts. Much of this discussion, however, has been divorced from the science of the reforms. In this article, the authors draw from emerging work in behavioural ethics and metascience that studies procedures analogous to those that are being used in courts. This work suggests that procedures can be effective, as they have been in science, if directed at key vulnerabilities in the research and reporting process. The authors’ analysis of the metascientific and behavioural ethical literature also suggests several nuances in how expert evidence procedure ought to be designed and employed. For instance, codes of conduct require specific and direct wording that experts cannot interpret as ethically permissive. Further, drawing on a recent case study, courts have an important role to play in establishing a culture that takes codes as serious ethical responsibilities, and not simply pro forma.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin ◽  
Michael Lutsky

Biased expert witnesses pose a distinct challenge to the legal system. In the criminal sphere, they have contributed to several wrongful convictions, and in civil cases, they can protract disputes and reduce faith in the legal system. This has inspired a great deal of legal-psychological research studying expert biases and how to mitigate them. In response to the problem of biased experts, courts have historically employed procedural mechanisms to manage partiality, but have generally refrained from using exclusionary rules. Canada diverged from this position in 2015, developing an exclusionary rule in White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co. In this article, we assembled a database of 229 Canadian bias cases pre- and post-White Burgess to evaluate the impact that this case had on the jurisprudence. The data suggests that White Burgess increased the frequency of challenges related to expert biases, however, did not noticeably affect the proportion of experts that were excluded. This suggests that the exclusionary rule introduced in White Burgess did not significantly impact the practical operation of expert evidence law, as it pertains to bias. We conclude by recommending that one way for courts to better address the problem of biased experts is to recognize the issue of contextual bias.


1988 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Gee

At the present time expert witnesses have almost no training for that role. It is also becoming very difficult to obtain suitable experience in advance of exposure to cross-examination in a major case, due to alterations in court procedure. The medical profession takes scant notice of the needs of lawyers and the courts. There is a need for formal training in witness techniques of groups of doctors in disciplines likely to lead to court exposure, especially in the light of changing attitudes to expert evidence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document