Expert Testimony Reliability Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Expert affirmation Reliability - Case Study ExampleIncompetent dependables in criminal cases might be to a greater extent unseasonedsworthy, but surveyors in civil courts face the same pressures. Last year, Geoffrey Wright, of EA Shaw, and I discussed the important role that expert witnesses yield to play in dispute resolution (EG 23 July 2005, p90). The General Medical Council had just held that the deduction given by Professor Sir Roy Meadow at the criminal trial of Sally Clarke was nave, grossly misleading, incompetent and careless. He was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and stripped of his attest to practice. On 17 February, Collins J ruled that Professor Meadow had acted honestly and in unspoiled faith see Meadows v General Medical Council 2006 EWHC 146 (Admin) 2006 09 EG 182 (CS). The appeal was allowed on the basis that his conduct should not have exposed him to such a sanction. In the same week, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, announced new measur es designed to ensure that expert witnesses in criminal trials give their objective opinion only and do not act as advocates. Expert witnesses get out have to reveal all of their evidence, and its source, to investigating police. They will also have to declare anything that might adversely affect their credibility or competence as an expert witness and must not give expert opinion beyond their area of expertness. In contrast to a liberal admissibility view, Paul Milich maintains that the jurys obvious limitations in evaluating complex scientific disputes cannot be overcome by the mythically powerful tools of cross-examination and closing argument. 2 He suggests that it may be over-hasty to assume that an adversarial legal proceeding will succeed in enabling a jury to understand scientific certification satisfactorily. harmonize to Mulch, when jurors are presented with complex scientific issues, they might choose to ignore these issues and make a decision establish on other factor s, such as an experts physical appearance and his/her demeanor. Mulchs argument seems plausible because jurors might have to resort to this alternative if they really do not understand the proffered testimony. Since judges and juries do not divvy up a common base of experience with an expert witness on the specialized matters being discussed in his/her testimony, they can have a difficult time probing into and evaluating the experts reasoning and opinions. The accessibility of proffered claims can deviate greatly depending on a number of factors, some of which were mentioned previously. The subject matter of some expert testimony can be inherently confusing, if not unintelligible, to laypersons. To return to a point made before, one