Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Issues Concerning Expert Evidence and Testimony

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Forensic Laboratory Handbook Procedures and Practice

Abstract

The material in this chapter provides the forensic science professional with a frame of reference in dealing with attorneys, judges, juries, and the court system. Because the subject matter of this chapter is so broad in scope, no attempt will be made to cover it exhaustively. By highlighting the basics, however, the chapter will serve as a useful adjunct to subsequent parts of this volume dealing with specific fields of expertise. The scientist who studies this chapter will have a general understanding of the law related to scientific evidence, including the standards for the admissibility of expert testimony, pretrial discovery procedures, and ethical considerations, and will be able to identify areas warranting close attention when they are encountered in the laboratory

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Materials adapted in part from Andre A. Moenssens, Carol E. Henderson & Sharon G. Portwood, Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases, (5th ed., Foundation Press 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fed. R. Evid. 702.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fed. R. Evid. 701.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fed. R. Evid. 702.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fed. R. Evid. 703.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See, Mark McCormack, “Scientific Evidence: Defining a New Approach to Admissibility,” 67 Iowa L.Rev. 879 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Paul F. Rothstein, Federal Rules of Evidence, 3d ed. (Article VII, Opinions and Expert Testimony), RULE 702.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (App. D.C. 1923).

    Google Scholar 

  9. See, Kenneth Cheseboro, “Galileo’s Retort: Peter Huber’s Junk Scholarship,” 42 Am.U.L.Rev. 1737, 1793–96 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Richard Saferstein, “Criminalistics – A Look Back at the 1970s, A Look Ahead to the 1980s,” 24 J. FORENSIC SCIE. 925 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  11. People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  12. See, e.g., People v. Slone, 76 Cal.App.3d 611, 143 Cal.Rptr. 61 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  13. See, e.g., People v. Acri, 277 Ill.App.3d 1030, 214 Ill.Dec. 761, 662 N.E.2d 115 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Andre A. Moenssens, “Requiem for the ‘General Acceptance’ Standard in Forensic Science – Some Whimsical Thoughts on the Battle of Frye vs. The Federal Rules of Evidence,” 1982 LEGAL MEDICINE ANNUAL 275, 279–280 (Cyril H. Wecht, ed. 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  15. See also, James E. Starrs, “In the Land of Agog: An Allegory for the Expert Witness,” J. FORENSIC SCI. 30 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  16. See, Peter Huber, “Junk Science in the Courtroom,” FORBES, Jul. 8, 1991 at 68.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Id. at 592.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Id. at 594 (quoting United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1238 (3d Cir. 1985)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995) (Kozinski, J. dissenting).

    Google Scholar 

  21. See, e.g., Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519, 292 S.E.2d 389 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  22. E.g., State v. Meador, 674 So.2d 826 (Fla.App. 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Id. at 834.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Id. at 151.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Compare, David Crump, “The Trouble with Daubert-Kumho: Reconsidering the Supreme Court’s Philosophy of Science,” 68 Mo. L. Rev. 1 (2003), with Paul R. Rice, “Peer Dialogue: The Quagmire of Scientific Expert Testimony: Cramping the Supreme Court’s Style,” 68 Mo. L. Rev. 53 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  27. See, Watson v. Inco Alloys Int’l, Inc., 209 W.Va. 234, 545 S.E.2d 294, 300 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  28. See, People ex. Rel. Fordham Manor Reformed Church v. Walsh, 244 N.Y. 280, 291, 155 N.E. 575 (1927).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Moore’s Federal Practice § 16.02[3].

    Google Scholar 

  30. See, United States v. Clevenger, 458 F.Supp. 354 (E.D.Tenn. 1978); State v. Klindt, 389 N.W.2d 670, 672 (Iowa 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935).

    Google Scholar 

  32. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 105–106.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Id. at 112.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Id. at 111, n. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See, e.g., Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E) and (b)(1)(A); Committee Note for the 1970 amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 in 28 U.S.C.A. (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  39. See, United States v. Bel-Mar Laboratories, Inc., 284 F.Supp. 875 (E.D.N.Y. 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(F).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G)(2006).

    Google Scholar 

  42. See, United States v. Hearst, 412 F.Supp. 863 (N.D.Cal. 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  43. See, e.g., United States v. Lambert, 580 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 577, 579–580 (3d. Cir. 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  44. See generally, Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S.545 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  45. United States v. Countryside Farms, Inc., 428 F.Supp. 1150 (D.Utah 1977)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(B).

    Google Scholar 

  47. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C).

    Google Scholar 

  48. See, American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice (3d ed. 1992), dealing with Discovery and Procedure Before Trial.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See, Ala.R.Crim.P. 16; Del.Sup.Ct.Crim.R. 16; West’s Fla.Crim.R.Proc. 3.220; Mass.R.Crim.P. 14; N.J.Crim.Prac.R. 3:13–3; N.C. Gen.Stat. §15A-903(a) & §15A-905(b); N.D.R.Crim.P. 16; Ohio Crim.R.Proc. 16; R.I.Sup.Ct.R.Crim.P. 16; R.I.Sup.Ct.R.Crim.P. 16; S.C.R.Crim.P. 5; S.D.C.L. Ch. 23A-13; Tenn.R.Crim.P. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  50. E.g., Iowa R.Crim.Proc. 2.14(b); Gale v. State, 792 P.2d 570 (Wyo. 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  51. See, Alaska R.Crim.P. 16; Ariz.R.Crim.P. 15.1, 15.2; Colo.R.Crim.P. 16; Me.R.Crim.P. 16; Md.R.Crim.P. 4–263; N.Y. McKinney’s Crim.Proc.L. §§240.20 & 240.30; Or.Rev.Stat. 135.815, 135.835; Vt. R.Crim.P. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See, McLaughlin, “Discovery and Admissibility of Expert Testimony,” 63 NOTRE DAME L.REV. 760 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  53. See, Note, “Rule 26(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Discovery of Expert Information,” 42 U.MIAMI L.REV. 1101 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2029 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Note, “Treating Expert Like Ordinary Witnesses: Recent Trends in Discovery of Testifying Experts Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4),” 66 WASH. U. L. Q. 787, 788 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  56. E.g. Sea Colony v. Continental Insurance Co., 63 F.R.D. 113 (D.Del. 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Perry v. W.S. Darley & Co., 54 F.R.D. 278 (E.D.Wis. 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Contrast Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 68 F.R.D. 397 (E.D.Va. 1975) with Seiffer v. Topsy’s International, Inc., 69 F.R.D. 69 (D.Kan. 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Fed..R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4), Advisory Committee Note, 48 F.R.D. 487, at 502.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See, Day, “The Ordinary Witness Doctrine: Discovery of the Pre-Retention Knowledge of a Nonwitness Expert,” 38 ARK. L. REV. 763 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Scott A. Larlson & Ronald L. Lipinski, “eDiscovery: A New Approach to Discovery in Federal and State Courts,” 95 ILL. BAR J. 184 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Fed. R. Evid. 702.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ordway Hilton, “A New Look at Qualifying Expert Witnesses and the Doctrine of Privilege for Forensic Scientists,” 17 J. FORENSIC SCI. 586 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); but see, e.g., Radlein v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 971 So.2d 1200 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2007)(holding that the trial court’s decision will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of error).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Charles Illsley, Juries, Fingerprints, and the Expert Fingerprint Witness (Presentation at the International Symposium on Latent Prints at the FBI Academy, July 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Bogosian v. Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc., 104 F.3d 472, 477 (1st Cir. 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Thomas J. Kline, Inc. v. Lonillard, Inc., 878 F.2d 791, 800 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1073 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  69. U.S. v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 937 (2d Cir. 1993) (“even the most qualified expert must have his first day in court”), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1070 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  70. See The Technical Working Group on Education and Training in Forensic Science, Education and Training in Forensic Science: A Guide for Forensic Science Laboratories, Educational Institutions and Students, National Institutes of Justice Special Report (June 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Juries, Fingerprints, and the Expert Fingerprint Witness, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  72. See, e.g., Elizabeth McDonald, The Making of an Expert Witness: It’s in the Credentials, Wall St. J. B1 (Feb. 8, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  73. See, e.g., State v. Ruybal, 408 A.2d 1284 (Me. 1979); see also People v. Cornille, 448 N.E.2d 857 (1983) (new trial ordered where defense discovered that prosecution arson expert gave false credentials).

    Google Scholar 

  74. See Henry Fitzgerald, Jr., Phony “Expert” Jailed for 3 Years, Sun-Sentinel 3D (Dec. 1, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Fla. Stat. § 817.566 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Gilliam v. State, 514 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 1987); see also Kelvin v. State, 610 So.2d 1359 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Clark v. United States, 293 F. 301 (C.C.A.5 1923).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Fed. R. Evid. 703.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Brennan v. Reinhart Institutional Foods, 211 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  80. See, Imwinkelreid, The Methods of Attacking Scientific Evidence, 3d ed. (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Robinson v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 136, 183 S.E.2d 179 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  82. See, e.g., Beck v. State, 651 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.App. 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  83. E.g., National Association of Medical Examiners Bylaws, Article Ten, Code of Ethics and Conduct (2005); The National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics (2006); The American Board of Criminalistics Bylaws, Article IV.5.4 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  84. The American Academy of Forensic Sciences Bylaws Code of Ethics and Conduct, Art. II, Section 1b, c (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Id. at Art. II, Section 2.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Schmidt v. Ford Motor Co., 112 F.R.D. 216 (D. Colo. 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  87. See, http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/alpha_states.html, last visited on December 18, 2008.

  88. Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.4 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Id. at Rule 4.1.

    Google Scholar 

  90. See, e.g., Wilkins v. State, 146 P.3d 709 (Kan.App. 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Dupree v. Malpractice Research, Inc., 179 Mich.App. 254, 445 N.W.2d 498 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  92. See, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4(a)(2004).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Copp v. Breskin, 56 Wash.App. 229, 782 P.2d 1104 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Schering Corp. v. Vitarine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 889 F.2d 490 (3d Cir. 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Standard 3–3.3, ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, 3d ed. (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Standard 4–4.4, ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, 3d ed. (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Randall K. Hanson, Witness Immunity Under Attack: Disarming “Hired Guns,” 31 Wake Forest L. Rev. 497, 508–509 (1996)(reviewing arguments in support of and in opposition to witness immunity for experts); see also Carol Henderson Garcia, Expert Witness Malpractice: A Solution to the Problem of the Negligent Expert Witness, 12 Miss. C. L. Rev. 39 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Craig M. Cooley, Reforming the Forensic Science Community to Avert the Ultimate Injustice, 15 Stan. L. & Policy Rev. 381, 395–396 (2004)(listing 21 recent exonerations where the underlying conviction was based on inaccurate or completely false testimony by forensic examiners); see also Paul C. Giannelli, Fabricated Reports, 16 Crim. Just. 49, 49 (2002)(discussing some of the recent “experts” who consistently fabricated reports and testimonies to achieve a particular bias).

    Google Scholar 

  99. See Robert B. Stacey, A Report on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case, 54 J. Forensic Identification 706 (2004); Steven T. Wax & Christopher J. Schatz, A Multitude of Errors: The Brandon Mayfield Case, Champion Mag. at 6 (Sept./Oct. 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Murray v. State, 692 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla. 1997)(finding that State’s expert “affirmatively misled” the trial court as to the general acceptance or reliability of PCR DNA methodology); see also Nick Madigan, Houston’s Troubled DNA Crime Lab Faces Growing Scrutiny, N.Y. Times, Feb. 9, 2003, at I20 (Detailing the results of an audit of the police DNA lab that found a number of problems with its methods; in response to the audit, the district attorney ordered a review of all convictions based on the lab’s DNA analysis).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Richard L. Fricker, Pathologist’s Plea Adds to Turmoil, 79 ABA J. 24, 24 (Mar. 1993); see also Richard L. Fricker, Reasonable Doubts, 79 ABA J. 39, 44 (Dec. 1993)(the pathologist was reported to have a “reputation for providing the type of forensic evidence prosecutors needed,” though his conclusions were later deemed “impossible” by qualified reviewing medical examiners).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Jon Nordheimer, In New Jersey Slip-Ups Show Autopsy System Deficiencies, N.Y. Times, Oct. 20, 1993 at A1 (This article describes a number of flawed autopsies by county medical examiners in two different New Jersey counties, including one case where a pathologist described bullet entrance and exit wounds, and its track through the brain, where it was later established that death was due to “blunt force injury” and that no evidence of a bullet wound existed, and a second case where a medical examiner concluded that a woman had died from alcohol poisoning and exposure, when a later autopsy established the woman had been strangled and raped).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Peterson & John E. Murdock, Forensic Science Ethics: Developing an Integrated System of Support and Enforcement, 34 J. Forensic Sci. 749 (1989); see also Austin v. American Assn. of Neurological Surgeons, 253 F.3d 967, 973 (7th Cir. 2001)(“[I]t is well known that expert witnesses are often paid very handsome fees, and common sense suggests that a financial stake can influence an expert’s testimony, especially when the testimony is technical and esoteric and hence difficult to refute in terms intelligible to judges and jurors. More policing of expert witnesses is required, not less”).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Iowa Code Ann. § 622.72 (West 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  105. See, Oliver C. Schroeder & Theodore R. LeBlang, Court Appointed Experts, 1 Forensic Sci., 18–1, 18–1 through 18–20 (Cyril Wecht, Ed. Matthew Bender, N.Y. 2000)(explaining the role of the court-appointed expert; the statutory authorization for the court-appointed expert; the procedure for the appointment of the expert; the methods to discover the court-appointed expert’s opinion; the weight accorded to the court-appointed expert’s testimony; the use of court-appointed experts in civil and criminal trials; and finally, the constitutional issues related to appointing an expert); but see Catherine T. Struve, Doctors, the Adversary System, and Procedural Reform in Medical Liability Litigation, 72 Fordham L. Rev. 943 (March 2004)(discussing a 1998 survey that indicated that in litigation involving complicated technical or scientific testimony only 16% of federal judges used court-appointed experts).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Code of Ethics of the California Association of Criminalists, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Terry Carter, M.D. with a Mission: a Physician Battles against Colleagues He Considers Rogue Expert Witnesses, 90 ABA J. 40, 42 (Aug. 2004)(advocating peer review in the courtroom for medical expert witnesses).

    Google Scholar 

  108. See Twenty-Five Year Retrospective on the Science Court: A Symposium, 4 Risk 95–188 (1993)(containing a series of articles by advocates and detractors of the science court, including one by its “inventor”); see also Sven Timmerbeil, The Role of Expert Witnesses in German and U.S. Civil Litigation, 9 Annual Surv. Intl. & Comp. L. 163, 170 (Spring 2003)(discussing several proposals, including the science court, that addressed the concern that hired experts hindered the truth-seeking process of courts).

    Google Scholar 

  109. In re Investig. of W. Va. St. Police Crime Lab, 438 S.E.2d at 509; see also Jane Harper, West Virginia Court Wants Forensics Expert Prosecuted, Houston Post (July 17, 1994) at A22.

    Google Scholar 

  110. See, e.g., Trower v. Jones, 520 N.E.2d 297 (Ill. 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  111. Kevin M. Dowd, 14 N. Eng. J. On Crim. & Civ. Confinement. 169, 171 (1988)(reviewing Patrick A. Anderson & L. Thomas Winfree, Expert Witnesses: Criminologist in the Courtroom (1987)); Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Cases Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial, NIJ Research Report (June 1996)(Arguing that even improved science will not remedy the problem of inadequate legal counsel; of twenty-eight cases addressed in the study, had defense counsel sought the opinion of a competent expert or simply reviewed the case notes of the state’s expert witnesses prior to trial, then the inconsistencies and inadequacies of these flawed testimonies could have been brought to light during the trial)(Available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt (last visited on February 13, 2008)).

  112. Frank E. Haddad, Admissibility of Expert Testimony, 1 Forensic Sciences n. 36 at 1–21 and 1–23 (Cyril Wecht, Ed., Matthew Bender, N.Y. 1996)(stressing that the keys to an effective cross examination are (1) preparation and (2) becoming knowledgeable in the particular field).

    Google Scholar 

  113. Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 30 at 164–165 (W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton & David G. Owen, eds. 5th ed. 1984); Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts §114, at 269 (West 2000); see also Kathleen L. Daerr-Bannon, Cause of Action for Negligence or Malpractice of Expert Witness, 17 Causes of Action 2d 263 (2003)(adding that in a malpractice case against a friendly expert, the plaintiff must also prove that witness immunity is not applicable to the facts to avoid dismissal).

    Google Scholar 

  114. See, e.g., LLMD of Michigan, Inc. v. Jackson-Cross Co., 740 A.2d 186, 191 (Pa. 1999)(“[t]he judicial process will be enhanced only by requiring that an expert witness render services to the degree of care, skill and proficiency commonly exercised by the ordinarily skillful, careful and prudent members of their profession”); see also Leslie R. Masterson, Witness Immunity or Malpractice Liability for Professionals Hired as Experts?, 17 Rev. Litig. 393, 393 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Richard S. Frank, The Essential Commitment for a Forensic Scientist, 32 J. Forensic Sci. 5 (1987)(“[t]he impact of the forensic scientist’s conclusions affords no room for error, because such an error may be the direct cause of an injustice”).

    Google Scholar 

  116. Kurt Ludwig & Gary Fontaine, Effect of Witnesses’ Expertness and Manner of Delivery of Testimony on Verdicts of Simulated Jurors, 42 Psychol. Rep. 955 (1978). There are many cases that express concern that the special aura of reliability and credibility that surrounds an expert witness will cause the jury to neglect their fact-finding role. See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 681 N.W.2d 901, 906 (Wis. 2001); State v. Ward, 138 S.W.3d 245, 270 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003); Franco v. State, 25 S.W.3d 26, 29 (Tex. App. 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  117. Courts have awarded plaintiffs damages for illegal confinement due to legal malpractice, rejecting the argument that estimating the value of a person’s loss of liberty is speculative. See, e.g., Geddie v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 354 So. 2d 718 (La. App. 1978); Holliday v. Jones, 264 Cal. Rptr. 448 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. 1989)(awarding damages for emotional distress as a result of wrongful incarceration due to professional malpractice); In re Investig. of W. Va. St. Police Crime Lab, 438 S.E.2d at 509 (underlying civil suit settled for the state’s $1 million insurance policy limit); see also, Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers: Liability for Professional Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty § 53 cmt. (g) (2000)(“emotional distress damages are… ordinarily recoverable when misconduct causes a client’s imprisonment”).

    Google Scholar 

  118. Mark Hansen, Experts are Liable, Too, 86 ABA J. 17, 17 (Nov. 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Davis v. Wallace, 565 S.E.2d 386, 389–90 (W. Va. 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  120. Levine v. Wiss & Co., 478 A.2d 397, 399 (N.J. 1984)(denying a court-appointed expert witness immunity); contra Laurie S. Weiss, Expert Witness Malpractice Actions: Emerging Trend or Aberration?, 15 (2) Pract. Litig. 27, 37 (March 2004)(discussing cases from other jurisdictions that recognize witness immunity if the expert was appointed by the court).

    Google Scholar 

  121. Pollock v. Pahjabi, 781 A.2d 518 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  122. James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  123. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 780 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  124. LLMD of Michigan, Inc. v. Jackson-Cross Co., 740 A.2d at 191.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Boyes-Bogie v. Horvitz, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 208 (Mass. Super. 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  126. Marrogi v. A.A. Mathews, 805 So. 2d 1118 (La. 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  127. Politi v. Tyler, 751 A.2d 788 (Vt. 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  128. Murphy v. A.A. Mathews, 841 S.W.2d 671 (Mo. 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  129. See, e.g., Don DeBenedictis, Off-Target Opinions, 80 ABA J. 76, 76 (Nov. 1994)(Hospital and national drug laboratory settled on the eve of trial for undisclosed sums for misdiagnosing toxins in a baby’s blood, which had resulted in the mother’s murder conviction and imprisonment); In re Investig. of W. Va. St. Police Crime Lab, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Assoc. Engineers, Inc., 776 P.2d 666 (Wash. 1989); see also Weiss, 15(2) Pract. Litig. N. 217 at 30–31 (listing Washington as the only state where witness immunity still controls “friendly” experts and providing a detailed description of the Bruce decision); Diehl v. Danuloff, 618 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. App. 2000)(court-appointed expert enjoys quasi-judicial immunity as “an arm of the trial court”); Otero v. Warnick, 614 N.W.2d 177 (Mich. App. 2000)(holding that forensic odontologist for county medical examiner was not liable to a former criminal defendant because (1) as an employee of the medical examiner, the expert owed no duty to criminal defendants in performing his official duties, and (2) expert’s testimony at trial was absolutely privileged provided it was relevant, material, and pertinent to the issue being tried).

    Google Scholar 

  131. Michael J. Saks, Prevalence and Impact of Ethical Problems in Forensic Science, 34 J. Forensic Sci. 772 (1989) (containing a summary of some cases involving litigation against expert witnesses).

    Google Scholar 

  132. Bailey v. Rogers, 631 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. App. 3 Dist. 1982); compare Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 781 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1992), on appeal after remand, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 581 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1995), on subsequent appeal, 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 780 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1997)(holding that the California Civil Code’s litigation privilege does not protect a negligent expert witness from liability to the party who hired the witness, though it would still shield experts that are court appointed, and would also shield expert witnesses from suit by opposing parties); Murphy, 841 S.W.2d at 679 (also holding that under Missouri law, privilege does not protect a negligent expert witness from liability to the party who hired the witness, though it would still shield experts that are court appointed, and would also shield expert witnesses from suit by opposing parties); Marrogi, 805 So. 2d at 1132 (broadening the scope of expert witness malpractice to include not only pretrial litigation services but also the expert’s actual testimony during trial).

    Google Scholar 

  133. Murphy, 841 S.W.2d at 679 (holding that the policy behind witness immunity is not advanced by offering immunity for incompetent experts retained by a party to perform professional services including trial testimony); Marrogi, 805 So. 2d at 1132 (same).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law, Stetson University College of Law, 1401 61st Street South, Gulfport, FL, 33707, USA

    Carol Henderson JD (Director) & Kurt W. Lenz JD

Authors
  1. Carol Henderson JD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kurt W. Lenz JD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol Henderson JD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Harris County Medical Examiner's Office, Old Spanish Trail 1885, Houston, 77054, Texas, USA

    Ashraf Mozayani

  2. Ascot Drive 305, Aiken, 29803, South Carolina, USA

    Carla Noziglia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Henderson, C., Lenz, K.W. (2011). Legal Issues Concerning Expert Evidence and Testimony. In: Mozayani, A., Noziglia, C. (eds) The Forensic Laboratory Handbook Procedures and Practice. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-872-0_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation