tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55263082010-02-24T07:01:07.954-05:00Blog 702The official blog of www.daubertontheweb.compnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.comBlogger908125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-13728190786310320502008-10-24T23:00:00.001-05:002008-10-24T23:01:19.607-05:00Pet Writing Peeve of the Day"Acquaintanceship."<br /><br />Spotted twice in as many days.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-1372819078631032050?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-73981909295111983562008-10-13T14:34:00.002-05:002008-10-13T14:36:17.678-05:00Still on HiatusBusy with other things right now.<br /><br />Stay tuned.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-7398190929511198356?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-57793030780005065632008-06-10T10:22:00.002-05:002008-06-10T10:35:48.664-05:00Today's Pet Writing PeevePlease, for the love of God:<br /><br />Neither<blockquote style="font-family: arial; font-style: italic;">Jones failed to attend the July 6, 2002, meeting.</blockquote>nor, worse still,<br /><blockquote style="font-family: arial; font-style: italic;">Jones failed to attend the July 6, 2002 meeting.</blockquote>but rather<blockquote style="font-family: arial; font-style: italic;">Jones failed to attend the meeting of July 6, 2002.</blockquote>and thereafter<blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Jones failed to attend the July 6 meeting.</span></blockquote>Thank you for your attention.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-5779303078000506563?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-5575982394060779362008-06-07T19:49:00.002-05:002008-06-07T19:55:09.010-05:00No, We're Not DefunctJust resting, filled as we are with blogging ennui (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.daubertontheweb.com/2008/01/happy-new-year.html">New Year's resolutions</a> notwithstanding).<br /><br />We do have our day job, you see, as well as other pursuits. And we're not under any contractual obligations to blog, so we're free to succumb to ennui when it besets us.<br /><br />But we'll get over it at some point and rejoin the fray. We can already feel it coming.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-557598239406077936?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-49162881326959235532008-01-20T16:06:00.001-05:002008-01-20T16:44:55.056-05:0011th Circuit Upholds Statistical Testimony in Medicare-Fraud ProsecutionOn plain error review, the Eleventh Circuit has upheld the trial court's admission of testimony from a statistician in a Medicare-fraud case.<br /><br />The defendant was a dermatologist charged with performing unnecessary skin-cancer surgeries on hundreds of elderly patients. The putative need for surgery was based on biopsies conducted in the dermatologist's laboratory. Lab employees testified that the lab was staffed by inadequately trained technicians who did a poor job at preparing the biopsy slides. Sometimes, apparently for sport, the technicians altered the slides. Once, they said they substituted chewing gum for tissue. Another time, they substituted styrofoam. On both occasions, they said, the dermatologist diagnosed cancer based on the slides.<br /><br />The prosecution's expert statistician selected a random sample of the dermatologist's slides and passed them along to the government's health experts, who testified to various opinions based on them. The statistician also testified at trial, without objection, about how he generated the random sample. The dermatologist was convicted.<br /><br />On appeal, the dermatologist's lawyers argued on various grounds that the trial court should have excluded the statistician's expert testimony <span style="font-style: italic;">sua sponte</span>. In response, the government argued, among other things, that the statistician's testimony wasn't expert evidence in the first place, because he did not offer an "opinion." In an unpublished <span style="font-style: italic;">per curiam</span> opinion, the 11th Circuit affirmed the admission of the testimony but made short work of the government's "opinion" argument:<blockquote>In its brief, the Government inexplicably contends [the statistician] was not an expert because he did not render any expert opinion. Although an expert is permitted to render an opinion, Fed. R. Evid. 703, 704, he is not required to do so, and failure to offer an opinion does not negate an expert's status, <span style="font-style: italic;">see</span> Fed. R. Evid. 702. During the Government's proffer and during his testimony, [the statistician] discussed his specialized training, as well as the methodology he employs in selecting random samples. His specialized knowledge lay outside the province of the jury and rendered him an expert.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">See </span><a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200615538.pdf">United States v. Rosin</a>, No. 06-15538 (11th Cir. Jan. 16, 2008) (Black, Hull, & Fay, JJ.).<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-4916288132695923553?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-10545836350971439742008-01-20T14:25:00.000-05:002008-01-20T14:35:14.527-05:00Witness Tampering Watch (British Edition)If the RSPCA's experts don't initially say what the RSPCA wants, they may be told to say something different.<br /><br />The British are shocked. <a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/284/rspca-heavily-criticised-as-cruelty-case-collapses/">K9 Magazine</a><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>has the story.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-1054583635097143974?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-62202606722854439182008-01-20T00:28:00.000-05:002008-01-20T00:41:09.908-05:00Expert Testimony on False Confessions Too Abstract, Says 5th CircuitIn an unpublished<span style="font-style: italic;"> per curiam </span>opinion, the Fifth Circuit has upheld a trial court's decision excluding a criminal defendant's proffered expert evidence on false confessions. The expert's testimony, the panel said, consisted only of generic propositions; the expert failed to apply them adequately to the facts of the case. From the opinion:<blockquote>Pursuant to Rule 702, testimony from a qualified expert witness is permitted if the opinion will assist the trier of fact, "the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, [] the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, <span style="font-style: italic;">and </span>[]<span style="font-style: italic;"> the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case</span>." Fed. R. Evid. 702 (emphasis added). Here, the district court determined that [the expert] added nothing more than abstract scientific nostrums. [The expert's] proffered testimony did not apply recognized or accepted principles to [the defendant's] particular circumstances. Instead, it offered only the general proposition that false confessions can occur. <span style="font-style: italic;">See United States v. Alexander</span>, 816 F.2d 164, 169 (5th Cir. 1987) (stressing that trial court's are not required to admit generic expert testimony). Accordingly, even if the district court could have properly admitted the evidence, it was not "manifestly erroneous" to exclude it.</blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">See </span><a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C06/06-31234.0.wpd.pdf">United States v. Dixon</a>, No. 06-31234 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2008) (King, Barksdale, & Dennis, JJ.).<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-6220260672285443918?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-25575252194609967552008-01-16T01:23:00.000-05:002008-01-16T01:24:54.853-05:00More on Babies in the MicrowaveDefense expert: Babies are not <a target="_blank" href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/01/15/ddn011508arnoldweb.html">pancake batter</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-2557525219460996755?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-3702722492262237912008-01-11T17:36:00.000-05:002008-01-11T18:27:25.250-05:00Judge Posner on the Static 99In sentencing proceedings, experts often rely on an instrument known as the "<a target="_blank" href="http://ww2.ps-sp.gc.ca/publications/corrections/pdf/Static-99-coding-Rules_e.pdf">Static 99</a>" to estimate the risks of recidivism for sex offenders. Although Rule 702 does not apply at the sentencing phase in federal cases, the sentencing guidelines do call for information considered at sentencing to meet a standard of "probable accuracy."* In a Seventh Circuit opinion issued yesterday, Judge Posner devotes substantial discussion to the Static 99, its uses, and its limitations. <span style="font-style: italic;">See </span><a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-1266_014.pdf">United States v. McIlrath</a>, No. 07-1266 (7th Cir. Jan. 10, 2008) (Posner, Wood, & Williams, JJ.).<br />______________________________________<br /><br />* See U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 (“In resolving any dispute concerning a fact important to a sentencing determination, the court may consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.”).<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-370272249226223791?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-79208277921762099052008-01-10T20:17:00.000-05:002008-01-10T20:19:43.950-05:00On Babies in the MicrowaveAt the murder trial, do you need a microwave expert, or a baby expert?<br /><br />Sadly, the question is <a target="_blank" href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/b/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/01/09/ddn010908arnoldweb.html">not hypothetical</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-7920827792176209905?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-15744907671241707552008-01-10T20:02:00.001-05:002008-01-10T20:04:12.072-05:00California Supreme Court Hears Argument on Recoverability of Expert Fees Under Cal. Civ. Code 1021.5California's high court heard argument Wednesday on whether expert fees are recoverable by the prevailing party in actions brought under the state's private attorney general statute. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1199700331347">Law.com</a> has the story.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-1574490767124170755?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-77906681640458901342008-01-10T19:49:00.000-05:002008-01-10T19:55:14.021-05:009th Circuit Upholds Fingerprint EvidenceIn an unpublished opinion, a Ninth Circuit panel has upheld the trial court's decision to admit fingerprint testimony without a <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span> hearing. The reliability of fingerprint evidence may properly be taken for granted, the opinion holds -- at least in the absence of evidence from the objecting party calling its reliability into question. <span style="font-style: italic;">See </span><a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C55B597A1C6B8A0882573CB005E8EFD/$file/0550820.pdf?openelement">United States v. Calderon-Segura</a>, No. 05-50820 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2008) (Kozinski, Reinhardt, & Brunetti, JJ.).<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-7790668164045890134?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-1909743175433603832008-01-06T19:02:00.000-05:002008-01-06T19:13:34.694-05:00Anesthesiologist Competent to Testify on Ophthalmologic Effects, Says Idaho Supreme CourtReversing a trial court's evidentiary ruling, the Idaho Supreme Court has held that an anesthesiologist was competent to opine that a patient's anesthesia caused post-operative blindness in his right eye. The lower court had wanted to hear from an ophthalmologist. <span style="font-style: italic;">See</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/foster.pdf">Foster v. Traul</a>, No. 33537 (Idaho Dec. 24, 2007).<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-190974317543360383?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-57989344275654797962008-01-05T12:39:00.000-05:002008-01-05T12:51:00.583-05:008th Circuit Reverses Exclusion of Accident Reconstruction ExpertsThe Eighth Circuit has reversed a trial court decision that excluded testimony from plaintiffs' accident reconstruction experts and awarded summary judgment to defendants. The district court relied in part on differences between conditions in the experts' testing and during the accident. Those differences were not so substantial, the appellate panel held, as to render the experts' opinions unreliable. <span style="font-style: italic;">See </span><a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/01/063855P.pdf">Sappington v. Skyjack, Inc.</a><span style="font-style: italic;">,</span> No. 06-3855 (8th Cir. Jan. 4, 2008) (Bye, Bowman, & Smith, JJ.).<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-5798934427565479796?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-63772356412391099682008-01-01T16:05:00.001-05:002008-01-01T16:05:49.079-05:00Happy New YearOur resolution: to blog once again.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-6377235641239109968?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-59576783275830532322007-10-07T00:39:00.001-05:002007-10-07T01:34:03.909-05:00Hold Daubert Hearings, Says Mississippi High CourtLast week, a sharply divided Mississippi Supreme Court signaled that trial courts risk reversal if they exclude expert testimony without holding a <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span> hearing. <span style="font-style: italic;">See</span> <a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO43980.pdf">Smith v. Clement</a>, No. 2006-CA-00018-SCT (Miss. Oct. 4, 2007). The testimony in question was offered on summary judgment, in an affidavit from the plaintiffs' mechanical engineer, to prove that a school bus fire was caused by defects in the bus's propane fuel system. The trial court struck the testimony and awarded summary judgment to the defendant. Although the trial court did hear argument on the summary judgment motion, it held no hearing specifically devoted to the evidentiary issue. As a result, the plaintiffs were denied sufficient opportunity to defend and develop the expert's opinion, a five-justice majority held. From the opinion:<blockquote>Prior to any <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span> determination or other decision regarding the proffer of expert evidence, the parties must be afforded the opportunity to be heard. We generally recommend that the trial court conduct an in limine hearing specifically on the subject, as this procedure will result in full briefing and argument by the parties regarding the proposed expert testimony. This will not only assist the trial court in its function as evidentiary gatekeeper; it will provide a fuller record for an appellate court should the parties contest the evidentiary ruling. While an in limine hearing may not be necessary in all cases, it does provide the most efficient manner of addressing the issue in many cases.</blockquote>Four justices dissented, noting that the plaintiffs had an opportunity to address the evidentiary points at oral argument on the summary judgment motion.<br /><br />In suggesting that it exalts form over substance to require a separate, dedicated<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert </span>hearing, the dissenters might seem to have a point. The justices' deeper disagreement may have been over the degree to which <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span> should come into play on summary judgment at all. The majority approvingly cited <span style="font-style: italic;">Cortes-Irizarry v. Corporacion Insular De Seguros</span>, 111 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 1997), <span style="font-style: italic;"></span>for the proposition that <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert's </span>gatekeeping regime should be employed only with "great care and circumspection" at the summary judgment stage.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-5957678327583053232?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-12939239639841227402007-10-02T11:52:00.000-05:002007-10-02T11:54:51.335-05:00Another Unsettling Field of Expertise<a target="_blank" href="http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2XD0BQ3aJGOfZiDdjorrU7TbM_A">Mattress stains</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-1293923963984122740?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-21530202157001584822007-08-04T17:21:00.001-05:002007-08-04T17:22:57.064-05:00Naysaying<a target="_blank" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/">Long piece in <span style="font-style: italic;">Newsweek</span></a> on the industrial manufacture of scientific doubt. Topic: global warming.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-2153020215700158482?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-14277402775164544732007-07-28T23:38:00.001-05:002007-07-28T23:39:50.269-05:00Quantum Indeterminacy in Extra InningsFrom the AP report on tonight's 12-6 win by the Red Sox over Tampa Bay:<br /><br />"Kyle Snyder (2-2) scattered one hit over two innings for the win."<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-1427740277516454473?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-48468975453515395372007-07-21T16:45:00.000-05:002007-07-21T17:09:09.510-05:00Mississippi Supreme Court Unimpressed with Social Worker's Reliance on "Instinct"The Supreme Court of Mississippi has faulted the trial court for giving even slight weight to testimony from a social worker in a custody dispute, when the testimony should have been excluded altogether. Asked to describe the basis of her custody recommendation, the social worker testified as follows:<blockquote>A. What [the child] told me and how she behaved in therapy.<br /><br />Q. Is there any recognized textbooks or science with regard to how you would reach your conclusion or recommendation?<br /><br />A. There is no exact science in psychology. There's a lot of experimental science, but as far as reaching conclusions, a lot of it you go to training, instinct, and -- mostly training.</blockquote>"There is no evidence," the high court said in its opinion, "that [the social worker's] opinion was either 'based upon sufficient facts or data' or 'the product of reliable principles and methods.'" <span style="font-style: italic;">See </span><a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO42843.pdf">Giannaris v. Giannaris</a>, No. 2005-CT-00498-SCT (Miss. July 19, 2007).<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-4846897545351539537?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-71364473971468943472007-07-19T11:46:00.000-05:002007-07-19T11:58:46.427-05:003d Circuit Upholds Exclusion of Appraiser's OpinionIn a case involving groundwater contamination from leaking storage tanks at a New Jersey gas station, the Third Circuit has issued an opinion upholding the trial court's exclusion of an appraiser's testimony on the effects of the contamination on nearby property values. The trial court permissibly found that the appraiser's analysis suffered from multiple methodological deficiencies. The opinion is non-precedential. <span style="font-style: italic;">See </span> <a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061663np.pdf">Player v. Motiva Enters., LLC</a>, No. 06-1663 (3d Cir. July 13, 2007) (Rendell, Jordan, & Hardiman, JJ.).<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-7136447397146894347?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-77887584609754429332007-07-13T14:27:00.000-05:002007-07-13T14:37:03.167-05:00"Medical Justice" Watch -- Day 1After looking at the piece in yesterday's <a target="_blank" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118420267421964058.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">WSJ</a>, we've sent an e-mail to the folks at "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.medicaljustice.com/">Medical Justice</a>," asking for a copy of the organization's "patient-physician contract" -- under which patients are asked to agree, as a condition of treatment, that they will rely, in any future malpractice claim, only on experts who "belong to [certain medical societies] and who strictly follow their code of ethics."<br /><br />No response so far. We'll keep you posted.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-7788758460975442933?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-2450472003990027802007-07-06T04:30:00.000-05:002007-07-06T04:42:21.984-05:007th Circuit Upholds Experts' Estimates of Drywall Workers' Rates, ProductivityIn a suit involving pension benefits, a Seventh Circuit panel has upheld the experience-based testimony of experts who estimated the rates and productivity of drywall workers. <span style="font-style: italic;">See </span><a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2367_015.pdf">Trs. of the Chicago Painters & Decorators Pension v. Royal Int'l Drywall & Decorating, Inc.</a>, No. 06-2367 (7th Cir. July 3, 2007) (Bauer, Manion, & Rovner, JJ.).<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-245047200399002780?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-78356982576956251892007-06-24T10:25:00.001-05:002007-06-24T13:15:23.802-05:00ER Doc May Testify on Bullet Trajectory, Says RI Supreme CourtThis past Wednesday, the Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld the admission of testimony from an ER physician on a bullet's angle of entry. <span style="font-style: italic;">See </span><a style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank" href="http://www.courts.state.ri.us/supreme/pdf-files/06-24.pdf">State v. Stone</a>, No. 2006-24-C.A. (R.I. June 20, 2007).<br /><br />When lawyers and legal academics compile their little lists of states currently adhering to <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Kumho Tire</span>, Rhode Island is routinely included. That's eminently reasonable, for list-making purposes. The state's high court has made friendly noises, over the years, about both decisions.<br /><br />Wednesday's decision in <span style="font-style: italic;">Stone</span>, however, mentions neither. Rather, it summarizes Rhode Island law on expert testimony as follows:<blockquote>The admission of expert testimony in Rhode Island is governed by Rule 702 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence which provides that "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of fact or opinion." The decision to permit a witness to testify as an expert is within the trial justice's sound discretion and rests upon such factors as the "witness's education, training, employment, or prior experiences." <span style="font-style: italic;">State v. Villani</span>, 491 A.2d 976, 978-79 (R.I. 1985).</blockquote>We're not Rhode Island practitioners, and we have no idea what goes on in the trenches there. We wonder, though, whether this passage, with its focus on qualifications and its citation of only a pre-<span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span> precedent from 1985, may signal some level of ambivalence about requiring elaborate reliability analyses for expert testimony as a general matter.<br /><br />The <span style="font-style: italic;">Stone </span>opinion certainly need not be read that way. The trial objection in <span style="font-style: italic;">Stone</span> focused on the expert's "experience in the penetration of skin with projectiles." Maybe the justices interpreted that objection as relating solely to qualifications and therefore saw no need to discuss other issues. Or maybe they saw qualifications and reliability as coming to pretty much the same thing, in the case at hand, because the testimony was on the "experience-based" end of the spectrum. Such a view of things would be consistent with the opinion's adoption of an alternative holding -- <span style="font-style: italic;">viz</span>., that any error in admitting the testimony was harmless.<br /><br />But we've gone and reread the earlier decisions, where the Rhode Island Supreme Court first dipped its toes into <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert's </span>waters, and the exercise has reminded us that those earlier decisions likewise stopped noticeably short of greeting the federal evidentiary standards with an enthusiastic bear hug. The court seems more to have sidled up to <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span> incrementally, in a series of cautious rhetorical steps. <span style="font-style: italic;">See, e.g., In re Odell</span>, 672 A.2d 457, 459 (R. I. 1996) (state's rule barring polygraph evidence is "consistent with" <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span>); <span style="font-style: italic;">State v. Morel</span>, 676 A.2d 1347, 1354-55 & n.2 (R. I. 1996) (state's existing relevance/appropriateness/helpfulness test is "consistent with" <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span>, whose "reasoning and guidelines" are "helpful and illuminating"); <span style="font-style: italic;">State v. Quattrocchi</span>, 681 A.2d 879, 884 n.2 (R. I. 1996) (court's citation of <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span> "does not indicate that this court has abandoned the test enunciated in <span style="font-style: italic;">Frye v. United States</span>, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), as analyzed in <span style="font-style: italic;">State v. Wheeler</span>, 496 A.2d 1382, 1387-89 (R.I. 1985)"); <span style="font-style: italic;">Gallucci v. Humbyrd</span>, 709 A.2d 1059, 1064 (R. I. 1998) (citing <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span> and Rhode Island's version of Rule 702 in connection with helpfulness to the trier of fact); <span style="font-style: italic;">DiPetrillo v. Dow Chem. Co</span>., 729 A.2d 677, 683-90 (R. I. 1999) (embracing <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span> in broad outline, and especially the concept of pretrial gatekeeping in appropriate cases, but stopping short of a clear and Sherman-like adoption of the federal standards for expert evidence in all their particulars) (dictum); <span style="font-style: italic;">Raimbeault v. Takeuchi Mfg. (U.S.)</span>, 772 A.2d 1056, 1060-62 (R.I. 2001) (stating that prior decisions have "recognized the applicability of <i>Daubert</i> to situations in which scientific testimony is proposed in Rhode Island state courts," and adding a "<span style="font-style: italic;">see also</span>" citation to <span style="font-style: italic;">Kumho Tire</span>, but ultimately gravitating to the state's pre-<span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert </span>relevance/appropriateness/helpfulness vocabulary, citing <span style="font-style: italic;">DiPetrillo</span>).<br /><br />We don't want to read to much into a short passage from one opinion. But <span style="font-style: italic;">Stone</span> does reignite some lingering uncertainty, in our minds, about whether the marriage between Rhode Island and <span style="font-style: italic;">Daubert</span> has yet been fully consummated -- or, if it has, with what degree of lust.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-7835698257695625189?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5526308.post-67059672099541953742007-06-23T18:18:00.000-05:002007-06-23T18:21:17.945-05:00The Ten Worst Jobs in Science<a target="_blank" href="http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/0203101256a23110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html">Popsci.com</a> has the list. "Expert witness" isn't on it -- unless you count "forensic entomologist," which clocks in at number 9, just ahead of "whale-feces researcher."<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5526308-6705967209954195374?l=www.daubertontheweb.com%2Fblog702.html' alt='' /></div>pnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044540407680011830noreply@blogger.com0