expert witness accreditation

[saseassociates]

I re-edited and removed the original cut of my video because of audio problems.

This is the new cut.

--John Sase

[saseassociates]

In the U.S., the accreditation generally comes from the attainment of a PhD, an MD, or similar credential from an accredited university (along with board certification in the medical fields) for traditional disciplines. However, there are many specialties that do not fall under the traditional academic umbrella. These fields seem to self regulated, but the peer review is often spurious--Caveat Emptor.

--Dr. John F. Sase, Ph.D., Economics

[tdmscience]

@saseassociates: thank you for the comments which are much appreciated. I am working on a number of expert witness stories and films at the moment and have become very interested in the Daubert test. I understand that this is widely used in the States and, although not used in the UK, there is growing talk of introducing something like it as, perhaps, an alternative to registering or accrediting expert witness in some formal officially run system. Do you think Daubert is a good idea ?

[saseassociates]

@tdmscience The Daubert is a good idea, though it can be overused and misused by attorneys who do not understand it. Essentially, if one follows the dictates found in a college statistics text, they will comply with the Daubert ruling. The problem is that half of the attorneys never took a statistics course in undergrad.

The following five points come from a section that include in all of my written report narrative....

[saseassociates]

@tdmscience ... The Daubert Standard

• Is the theory or technique that is employed generally accepted in the scientific community?

• Has the theory been peer reviewed and then published?

• Has the theory been tested?

• Is the known or potential rate of error acceptable? [in the U.S., 90% in the minimum, 95% is preferred]

• Are experts testifying about matters growing directly out of research, or have they simply developed opinions expressly for the purpose of testifying?

--John

[tdmscience]

@saseassociates: Daubert seems so simple put that way but right on the mark. One of the difficulties it seems from UK experts that I have spoken to on the subject is that of a situation where there is a topic or work that cannot be peer reviewed because there are no peers working in the same field. Would that mean that a genuine expert could fail the Daubert test but an expert, biassed say to the Defence but having peer reviewed work, could pass ? Tom

[saseassociates]

@tdmscience A conumdrum: God wrote the Bible, but S/He was never peer reviewed. Therefore the Bible would fail the Daubert test and God could never get university tenure.

However, 99.9..% of case reports are derivative works built upon previously peer reviewed material. When I determine losses, I do not re-invent the Confidence Interval, the t table, or the Ordinary Least Squares regression method. Remember that the Daubert Standard is developing through case law rather than statutory law...

[saseassociates]

@tdmscience ... Case Law evolves and can change with each new significant contribution. The Daubert Standard has emerged as a practical way to separate admissible scientific evidence from mere verbal prestidigitation. However, The Daubert ruling (Daubert vs Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical; 1993, 1995) has been evolving in the U.S. courts for almost two decades....

[saseassociates]

@tdmscience Rather than following the long-term practice of deferring to scientific experts to ascertain the validity of testimony, Daubert raises the bar by establishing the practice of questioning the validity of the experts. Over time, this evolutionary step will have the salutary effect of improving the justice system....

[saseassociates]

@tdmscience Expedient settlements will occur more frequently as the Daubert standard makes it obvious that simple truth backed with solid research, intelligent analysis and careful documentation will prevail.

--John 

[tdmscience]

@saseassociates Thanks for your detailed comments. What you say illustrates the fact that in the UK the idea of Daubert is not well understood and described the way you do shows it to be a major step forward if implemented in the UK and one which genuine experts need not fear. Perhaps what they fear is US attorney style questioning rather than the more polite British way (or so say the handful of British experts that I have spoken to who have experienced it in the US!). Tom

[thelurker25]

best courtroom quote - "everything that guy just said is bullshit, thank you."

[Clevelandmarko]

Nice JOb

[tdmscience]

Thanks for your comment. Do you have any experience of expert witnesses ? I would be interested to hear from you.

[Clevelandmarko]

Yes mostly housing issues, non-disclosure, CO death, lead, mold, bad construction, defective materials, sealedcasket explosion, and trip/fall. Been in front of a jury 7X, mayor and other courts 30X arbitration 5X , written over 500 expert type reports and I still cant spell. I am looking a workshop. I am much better at cross than in my earlier years, unfortunaly I usually piss off the attorney. Never knocked off the bench and even passed an almost Daubert.