Effects of an Attorney's Line of Argument on Accountants' Expert Witness Testimony

2004 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
David N. Ricchiute
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony ◽  
Auditor Liability ◽  
Mock Trial ◽  
Trial Judges ◽  
Auditing Standards

I test whether hints at an attorney's line of argument influence accountants' expert witness testimony. In experiment 1, litigation services accountants review evidence adopted from a recent auditor-liability case and decide whether a defendant auditor complied with generally accepted auditing standards. I find that hints posed before the review of evidence result in decisions that are more consistent with the attorney's verdict preference. Motivated by a lack of research on the role of accountants' expert testimony in judges' decisions and by evidence that most auditor-liability cases settle, I find in experiment 2 that the certainty of decisions in an expert's report affects the settlement decisions of experienced lawyers, a proxy for trial judges. These findings show that hints at an attorney's line of argument can influence accountants' decisions about evidence documenting auditing issues, and that the certainty of decisions in an expert's report can affect the decisions of mock trial judges. The study has implications for drafting attorney-expert retention letters, and for training accounting experts and the judiciary about the role of hints in the attorney-expert setting.

The Irresponsible Expert Witness: A Failure of Biomedical Graduate Education and Professional Accountability

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 70 (5) ◽  
pp. 754-762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Brent
Keyword(s):  
Expert Witness ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony ◽  
Professional Accountability ◽  
Proper Role ◽  
And Function

Many forces have created the epidemic of negligence and malpractice litigation. One of the contributing factors to the rising rate of nonmeritorious litigation is the increasing number of unqualified and irresponsible expert witnesses. The high remuneration has attracted physican-scientists who are unaware of the proper role of an expert witness. They are frequently manipulated by the attorneys and function as partisans rather than scholars. The role of the expert witness should be taught in medical and graduate school. Testimony should be treated as a scholarly endeavor and experts should be encouraged to seek peer review of their opinions and not to testify secretly and in isolation. It is suggested that greater visibility of experts and their testimony (light of day phenomenon) should raise the quality of expert witness testimony and encourage more qualified experts to participate as expert witnesses, thus removing the stigmata usually associated with unqualified expert witnesses.

Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery

2014 ◽  
Vol 120 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Anderson Eloy ◽  
Peter F. Svider ◽  
Adam J. Folbe ◽  
William T. Couldwell ◽  
James K. Liu
Keyword(s):  
Expert Witness ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
Scholarly Impact ◽  
Medical Licensing ◽  
Neurological Surgery

Object Expert witnesses provide a valuable societal service, interpreting complex pieces of evidence that may be misunderstood by nonmedical laypersons. The role of medical expert witness testimony and the potential professional repercussions, however, have been controversial in the medical community. The objective of the present analysis was to characterize the expertise of neurological surgeons testifying as expert witnesses in malpractice litigation. Methods Malpractice litigation involving expert testimony from neurological surgeons was obtained using the WestlawNext legal database. Data pertaining to duration of a surgeon's practice, scholarly impact (as measured by the h index), practice setting, and the frequency with which a surgeon testifies were obtained for these expert witnesses from various online resources including the Scopus database, online medical facility and practice sites, and state medical licensing boards. Results Neurological surgeons testifying in 326 cases since 2008 averaged over 30 years of experience per person (34.5 years for plaintiff witnesses vs 33.2 for defense witnesses, p = 0.35). Defense witnesses had statistically higher scholarly impact than plaintiff witnesses (h index = 8.76 vs 5.46, p < 0.001). A greater proportion of defense witnesses were involved in academic practice (46.1% vs 24.4%, p < 0.001). Those testifying on behalf of plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times than those testifying on behalf of defendants (20.4% vs 12.6%). Conclusions Practitioners testifying for either side tend to be very experienced, while those testifying on behalf of defendants have significantly higher scholarly impact and are more likely to practice in an academic setting, potentially indicating a greater level of expertise. Experts for plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times. Surgical societies may need to clarify the necessary qualifications and ethical responsibilities of those who choose to testify.

Admissibility of Human Factors Expert Testimony in Light of Daubert

1996 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 511-514
Author(s):  
Martin I. Kurke
Keyword(s):  
Human Factors ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Specialized Knowledge ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony ◽  
Professional Needs

The 1993 Supreme Court decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. created new, more stringent rules for admissibility of expert witness testimony based upon “scientific” knowledge as opposed to expert testimony based upon “technical or other specialized” knowledge. Because human factors professionals may testify on the basis of either of the two categories, they should be aware of the requirements for admissibility of both categories. Each time one is engaged as a potential expert witness, the human factors-ergonomics professional needs to determine the basis of the testimony he/she is about to provide and to notify the client attorney accordingly. This lecture describes the evolution of requirements for admissibility of both kinds of expert testimony. It also discusses the implications of additional requirements imposed upon all expert witnesses by the 1993 amendment of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Expert Witness Testimony in the Criminal Trial of Eugene de Kock: A Critique of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Defence

2000 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
L J Nicholas ◽  
L Coleridge
Keyword(s):  
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ◽  
Posttraumatic Stress ◽  
Stress Disorder ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony ◽  
The Core

The Diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was presented as the core testimony in mitigation of sentence in the Eugene de Kock criminal trial. Several hundred pages of expert witness testimony were assessed and the difficulties of diagnosing PTSD for forensic determination, especially when the client is familiar with the usually well-publicised symptoms, are presented. The obligation of expert witnesses to remain objective, testify within their areas of expertise, not assume the role of lie detectors and write accurate reports were emphasised.

Guidelines for Expert Witness Testimony in Medical Liability Cases(S93-3)

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 94 (5) ◽  
pp. 755-756 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Expert Witness ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Medical Liability ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony ◽  
Standards Of Practice ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics

The American Academy of Pediatrics joins with other medical organizations in emphasizing the obligation of objectivity when its members respond to requests to serve as expert witnesses in the judicial system. Regardless of the source of the request, such testimony ought to embody the relevant facts and the expert's knowledge, experience, and best judgment regarding the case. At the same time, the Academy reiterates that it cannot condone participation of its members in legal actions in which their testimony will impugn some performances that clearly fall within the accepted standards of practice or, conversely, will endorse some obviously deficient practices. The role of an expert witness in a medical liability case is to testify to the standards of care in a given case, and to explain how the defendant did or did not conform to those standards. An expert witness may be asked to testify as to whether a deviation from the standard of care caused the injury. Expert witnesses are also called upon to help an attorney determine if a case has merit, and in several states attorneys are required by law to consult an expert before a suit is filed. Because experts are relied upon to help courts and juries understand the "standards of practice" as applicable to a given case, care must be exercised that such "expert testimony" does not narrowly reflect the experts' views about applicable standards to the exclusion of other acceptable and perhaps more realistic choices. The standards of care for generalists may not necessarily be the standards of care for subspecialists.

Expert Testimony

2014 ◽  
pp. 20-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Soloway ◽  
Bryan C. Shelby
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
General Electric ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony

Chapter 4 reviews the major cases related to the admissibility and presentation of expert witness testimony in the courtroom. The majority of the cases involve general standards for medical and scientific evidence (Frye v. U.S., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, General Electric v. Joiner, Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael) that can be applied to psychiatry. The remaining cases (State v. Hurd, People v. Shirley, Rock v. Arkansas) relate to the admissibility—or not—of hypnotically refreshed testimony and hypnosis as a scientific practice.

Encouraging Debate on the Uniform Guidelines and the Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 566-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. McDaniel ◽  
Sven Kepes ◽  
George C. Banks
Keyword(s):  
Racial Differences ◽  
Personnel Selection ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Employee Selection ◽  
Disparate Impact ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony ◽  
Impact Theory ◽  
Long Time

This response summarizes commentaries on the M. A. McDaniel, S. Kepes, and G. C. Banks (2011) article, which argued that the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Several themes were present in the commentaries. No compelling arguments were presented to dispute the assertion that mean racial differences in job-related attributes will be with us for a long time. However, compelling arguments were made that the disparate impact theory of discrimination is a more central issue for personnel selection than the Uniform Guidelines. Similarly, arguments were presented that the assessment of adverse impact is problematic and that expert witness testimony needs improvement. Areas in need of further investigation were also identified. Finally, the role of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) in guiding regulatory, legislative, and court actions was considered.

scholarly journals SAKSI AHLI SEBAGAI ALAT BUKTI DALAM HUKUM ACARA PIDANA INDONESIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 1423
Author(s):  
Luh Putu Kristyanti
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Documentary Evidence ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Court Proceedings

Keterangan ahli/ saksi ahli merupakan salah satu alat bukti dalam hukum acara pidana Indonesia. Perlu ditelusuri lebih mendetail perihal keterangan ahli serta kondisi saat keterangan ahli termasuk alat bukti saksi atau alat bukti surat. Penelitian ini akan difokuskan pada peran saksi ahli dalam proses peradilan di pengadilan dalam memperoleh keadilan materiil. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode normatif dengan analisa kualitatif. Keterangan ahli dalam proses peradilan pidana jika diberikan secara tertulis termasuk pada alat bukti surat, namun ketika diberikan secara lisan di persidangan maka termasuk alat bukti keterangan saksi. Expert statement / expert witness is one of the evidence in Indonesian criminal procedure law. It needs to be explored in more detail regarding expert testimony and conditions when expert testimony includes witness evidence or letter evidence. This research will focus on the role of expert witnesses in court proceedings in obtaining material justice. This study uses a normative method with qualitative analysis. Expert testimony in the criminal justice process, if given in writing, includes documentary evidence, but when it is given orally in court, it includes evidence for witness testimony.

Expert Testimony

2019 ◽  
pp. 41-48
Author(s):  
Scott Soloway ◽  
Bryan C. Shelby ◽  
Heather Ellis Cucolo ◽  
Jeremy Colley
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
General Electric ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness Testimony

Chapter 4 reviews the major cases related to the admissibility and presentation of expert witness testimony in the courtroom. The majority of the cases involve general standards for medical and scientific evidence (Frye v. U.S., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, General Electric v. Joiner, Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael) that can be applied to psychiatry. The remaining cases (State v. Hurd, People v. Shirley, Rock v. Arkansas) relate to the admissibility – or not – of hypnotically-refreshed testimony and hypnosis as a scientific practice. The newest (Buck v. Davis) involves the risk assessment testimony adn unconstitutionality of incorporating race as a factor.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document