An informed consent plaintiff was required to produce expert testimony showing it to be more likely than not that the undisclosed greater risk of nerve damage from back surgery proximately caused his chronic pain, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in reinstating a directed verdict. The plaintiff suffers severe, chronic pain after undergoing a second discectomy to repair a herniated disc in his back. The first surgery had a positive outcome until the plaintiff reinjured himself while running. The defendant performed both surgeries.
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have already looked at the issue of DNA evidence in criminal cases, with several rulings restricting prosecutors' ability to admit such data without calling the lab analysts who prepared the tests to testify. Tuesday, the Court took another look at the issue - this time considering whether expert testimony based in part on DNA database matches is constitutionally barred.
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif., Aug. 12, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ - - "Stephen Irshay, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy at Touro University Worldwide offered expert testimony in the trial related to the shooting death of 15-year-old Larry King, an Oxnard high school student killed by a fellow classmate who was allegedly provoked by King's homosexuality, " reported Dr. Bernard Luskin, LMFT and Director of the TUW MFT Program. I didn't believe something like that could just happen by itself. There had to be some mitigating experience involved," Irshay stated during the trial.
The district court held that the expert testimony of Dr. Douglas T. Dietrich-the sole evidence of general causation submitted by Ruggiero-failed to meet the standards required by the Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmacenticals20 and the federal rules of evidence governing expert testimony.21 Daubert provides that a district court might consider whether a theory or technique has been and could be tested . . . what its error rate was, and whether scientific standards existed to govern the theory or technique's application or operation.
This article demonstrates that offender profiling testimony frequently is offered as scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, rather than character testimony, and correspondingly is evaluated and occasionally admitted as expert testimony. This article also argues that offender profiling should not be admissible as expert testimony. This article proposes a judicial presumption against the admission of expert testimony related to disciplines developed primarily for use in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Experts can rebut this presumption by producing convincing, objective evidence of the validity of the discipline, as well as its propensity for reliable application to individual cases. A presumption against admission is necessary to incentivize practitioners in dis...
Crime scene investigation - Case study
Evidence Expert testimony
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Welch Mortgage | Animal Aid | beard v us | Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc. | Gardner Museum | interesse nominale e reale | grenett | Asesinato justo | girasoles | juicio inquisitivo
