The Confrontation Clause barred a forensic pathologist from expressing opinions regarding an autopsy that he did not perform, the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a murder conviction.
A product liability plaintiff could not introduce evidence of previous electrical fires in Ford Windstar vans to show that the car manufacturer failed to adequately warn consumers of the hazard, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
An expert could not testify that a plaintiff would have been “extraordinarily successful” had the defendant not breached the parties’ contract in support of a claim for over $1 billion in “lost profits” damages, the California Supreme Court has ruled.
Published: August 21, 2012
Tags: expert witness
An expert witness for the prosecution should not have been permitted to testify that there was no doubt in his mind the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking, the Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a conviction.
Product liability plaintiffs should have been permitted to introduce expert testimony linking the short-term use of Prempro to a risk of breast cancer, the 8th Circuit has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
Experts in a child sex abuse case could not testify on repressed and recovered memory to explain the plaintiff’s delay in filing his personal injury lawsuit, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in reinstating a dismissal.
Johnson & Johnson should not have been barred from retaining as an expert any doctor who had treated one of the hundreds of plaintiffs in a mass tort action over pelvic mesh injuries, the New Jersey Appellate Division has ruled in reversing a pretrial order.
A plaintiff’s expert in a product liability case could not testify that each and every fiber of inhaled asbestos is a substantial contributing factor to any asbestos-related disease, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
Juries routinely dismiss expert testimony due to credibility problems, incomprehensibility, or simply because it is cancelled out by another expert’s testimony.
This leads to a number of important questions for the attorney and the expert in presenting testimony at trial. What exactly is credibility? Is an expert an advocate? How objective is an expert supposed to be?
A plaintiff seeking damages for psychological injuries was required to produce for discovery the report of a psychologist retained for trial, in addition to the report of the psychologist who treated her, the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.