To be considered an expert witness, an individual must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify about the given evidence. It was determined that a person who possesses knowledge and skills, which the general public does not, is not automatically qualified to be an expert witness. A person that is skilled in CPR would not be qualified to testify about the respiratory system. An expert witness needs to possess the knowledge and skills of an individual of the specialized area.
Also, a qualify person does not automatically become qualified as an expert in all areas. In Broders, the court found that although "Dr. Condo knew that neurosurgeons should be called to treat head injuries and what treatments they could provide... he [did not] know the effectiveness of those treatments." The court found that it could not establish that Dr. Condo was qualified enough to offer an expert testimony for the evidence, despite him being a qualified doctor.
…show more content…
In Gammill, the Court found that just because a person is a mechanical engineer does not mean that he has the understanding to offer an opinion on a product liability case. LeBeau's expertise is in toxicology and not in genetics. Although both fields of study require high levels of expertise and education, the information of the fields are drastically different. Toxicology is a form of science coming from biology, chemistry, and medicine that focuses on the adverse effects chemicals have on organisms. Genetics is a branch of science that is focused on DNA and
The reason being, the Supreme Court found that the expert evidence was not only useful, but was required to have a more in-depth understanding of the issues surrounding battered women. The rationale was, without expert testimony most people would be ignorant to spousal abuse. It was thought that without expert testimony, jurors would make assumptions about the stereotypes that may have been popularized by society as well ignore the importance of previous events that led up to the incident. Moreover, the trial judge charged the jurors properly, explaining that as long as there is some admissible evidence to establish the foundation for the expert 's opinion, he cannot subsequently instruct the jury to completely ignore the testimony. The judge also warned the jury that the more the expert relies on facts, not proven in evidence the less weight the jury may attribute to the opinion. Furthermore, expert evidence does not and cannot usurp the jury 's function of deciding whether, in fact, the accused 's perceptions and actions were reasonable. But fairness and the integrity of the trial process demand that the jury have the opportunity to hear that
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
More specifically, expert testimony is intended to assist jurors with their task of evaluating trial evidence by providing them with information that is not commonly known by laypeople but is relevant for making the decision confronting the jury (Neal and Kovera). Sometimes they may offer an opinion about a crucial issue in the case based on their specialized knowledge or skills. When testifying about their area of expertise or about the opinion that they have formed after reviewing case facts, “experts are essentially communicating information to the jury with the intent of influencing their decision in a case” (Neal and Kovera). Thus, in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, flawed expert testimony (fire investigator Vasquez and Fogg) could be easily construed as a persuasive message delivered to the jury. Sometimes the expert testimony may be flawed. Why? They misinterpreted and misunderstood the evidence. Generally, misinterpretation is a way causing wrongful conviction through the misuse of evidence. Misinterpretation of evidence refers to a failure to analyze or interpret evidence correctly, and thus, it may be misused (Ramsey). Correct analyzing and understanding of evidence needs expertise and skills. The misinterpretation could be unintentional or intentional (Ramsey). When misinterpretation happens, the
Dr. Nemur and Dr Strauss are arguing about whether or not they should use Charlie,“Dr Nemur was worried about using me but Dr. Strauss told him Miss Kinnian recommended me the best from all the people who she was teaching”. This shows that Ms Kinnian recommended Charlie and most likely reviewed the surgery. Ms.Kinnian cares for Charlie, so would not recommend him without looking into the surgery. What this argument fails to consider is the fact that Ms. Kinnian was the only one that reviewed it. There was no other person allowed. Dr. Nemur even specifically told Charlie not to tell anyone, “ Joe Carp said hey look where Charlie had his operation what did they do Charlie put some brains in. I was going to tell him, but I remembered Dr. Strauss said no”. This goes to show how little people are allowed to know about the operation. Even the friend of the patient is not allowed to know. This is no ethical because then people that care are then not allowed to give their review on the subject. Therefore there may not be a proper amount of people that is needed for a proper
The age of genetic technology has arrived. Thanks to genetic technological advancements, medical practitioners, with the help of genetic profiling, will be able to better diagnose patients and design individual tailored treatments; doctors will be able to discern which medications and treatments will be most beneficial and produce the fewest adverse side effects. Rationally designed vaccines have been created to provide optimal protection against infections. Food scientists have hopes of genetically altering crops to increase food production, and therefore mitigate global hunger. Law enforcement officers find that their job is made easier through the advancement of forensics; forensics is yet another contribution of genetic technology. Doctors have the ability to identify “high-risk” babies before they are born, which enables them to be better prepared in the delivery room. Additionally, oncologists are able to improve survival rates of cancer patients by administering genetically engineered changes in malignant tumors; these changes result in an increased immune response by the individual. With more than fifty years of research, and billions of dollars, scientists have uncovered methods to improve and prolong human life and the possibilities offered by gene therapy and genetic technology are increasing daily.
According to the Federal Rule of Evidence 702, A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case (Gardner & Anderson, 2013 pg. 523).
The legal system is not requiring the testifying professional to be 100% certain, but the criterion is “a preponderance of evidence that is more likely than not. All reports should state that the opinion given is based on “a reasonable degree of audiological
Defense experts are required to help the defense attorneys defend and breakdown all of the doubts in the prosecutors scientific findings in criminal cases. Scientific information is integral to a criminal prosecution, and a defense attorney needs to have an expert to assist he/she in discrediting the prosecution (Giannelli, 2011).
If a person can effectively and rationally understand the case against them, who the main players in the court are, and can assist in their own defense, then they do not qualify to be found not competent to stand trial. Thus, the legal standard for competency to stand trial is very specific. References Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2012). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied to law. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
The skills needed to be employed are to be sure you can work at a fast and high stressed level. To be able to perform patient vital signs, talk to parents and record patient history, perform EKGs and other tests, obtain accurate patient information needed for diagnosis and treatment, work with other medical staff and non-medical personnel, communicate with other medical service providers, and to educate patients about procedures or
If the testimony is held shortly after the event took place, the witness will most probably recall correct details of the event and can be helpful in making a decision and declare the final verdict. Another merit of eyewitness testimony is that if a jury hears the version of an event from several eyewitnesses, he will be able to come to a conclusion. Based on the common variables that all the witnesses claim to have experienced with nearly identical details, the jury will pick up on the similarities and get a better picture of the story.
Witnesses are often called before a court of law to testify in trials and their testimony is considered crucial in the identification and arrest of a suspect and the likelihood of a jury convicting a defendant.
can follow the steps to examine the evidence and prove the guilt of the suspect. With have the scientific
...n of legally obtained evidence and statements. Each and every person involved in the process of the evidence collection and processing must be available for trial. If one of these parties is not available, it may cause some doubt in the juror’s mind, as to what was done with that piece of evidence. The case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In conclusion if any piece of this investigation is not followed by using established guidelines, the outcome will not lead to the successful conviction.
Whether or not they volunteer they may have to testify as a forensic psychologists (Bank, 2001). A forensic psychologist as defined by the APA (1991) is a member of the profession of psychology and has a special responsibility for the quality of psychology practiced in the legal system. They have a responsibility to help their client and do what’s in their best interest. A psychological expert witness has two roles. One role being for therapeutic therapy where someone will come and talk to them looking for a listening ear.