Expert Testimony (Litigator Series) LandMark Publications

ISBN:

Published: September 26th 2014

Kindle Edition

659 pages


Description

Expert Testimony (Litigator Series)  by  LandMark Publications

Expert Testimony (Litigator Series) by LandMark Publications
September 26th 2014 | Kindle Edition | PDF, EPUB, FB2, DjVu, talking book, mp3, RTF | 659 pages | ISBN: | 5.50 Mb

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 29 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and interpret the provisions of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Testimony by Expert Witnesses. The selection of decisions spans from January 2013 to theMoreTHIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 29 U.

S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and interpret the provisions of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Testimony by Expert Witnesses. The selection of decisions spans from January 2013 to the date of publication.Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that expert opinion evidence is admissible if: (1) the witness is sufficiently qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education- (2) the scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue- (3) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data- (4) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods- and (5) the expert has reliably applied the relevant principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Fed. R.Evid. 702.Under Daubert and its progeny, including Daubert II, a district courts inquiry into admissibility is a flexible one.

Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969 (9th Cir.2013). In evaluating proffered expert testimony, the trial court is a gatekeeper, not a fact finder.

Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 565 (9th Cir.2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 750 F. 3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2014)[T]he trial court must assure that the expert testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. Id. at 564 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786). City of Pomona v.

SQM North America Corp., ibid.Expert opinion testimony is relevant if the knowledge underlying it has a valid connection to the pertinent inquiry. And it is reliable if the knowledge underlying it has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline. Id. at 565 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Shaky but admissible evidence is to be attacked by cross examination, contrary evidence, and attention to the burden of proof, not exclusion.

Id. at 564 (citation omitted). The judge is supposed to screen the jury from unreliable nonsense opinions, but not exclude opinions merely because they are impeachable.

Alaska Rent-A-Car, 738 F.3d at 969. Simply put, [t]he district court is not tasked with deciding whether the expert is right or wrong, just whether his testimony has substance such that it would be helpful to a jury. Id. at 969-70. City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., ibid.The test of reliability is flexible.

Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457, 463 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc). The court must assess the experts reasoning or methodology, using as appropriate criteria such as testability, publication in peer-reviewed literature, known or potential error rate, and general acceptance.

Id.- see also Primiano, 598 F.3d at 564. But these factors are meant to be helpful, not definitive, and the trial court has discretion to decide how to test an experts reliability as well as whether the testimony is reliable, based on the particular circumstances of the particular case. Primiano, 598 F.3d at 564 (citations and quotation marks omitted)- see also Barabin, 740 F.3d at 463.

The test is not the correctness of the experts conclusions but the soundness of his methodology, and when an expert meets the threshold established by Rule 702, the expert may testify and the fact finder decides how much weight to give that testimony. Primiano, 598 F.3d at 564-65. Challenges that go to the weight of the evidence are within the province of a fact finder, not a trial court judge.

A district court should not make credibility determinations that are reserved for the jury. City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., ibid.



Enter answer





Related Archive Books



Related Books


Comments

Comments for "Expert Testimony (Litigator Series)":


2istudio.pl

©2014-2015 | DMCA | Contact us