Home / Publications / NCJRS Abstract

PUBLICATIONS

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

NCJ Number:	166129

Title:	Enhancing the Role of the Scientific Expert Witness

Journal:	International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners Volume:2 Issue:3 Dated:(July/September 1996) Pages:182-183

Author(s):	G S Omenn

Date Published:	1996

Page Count:	2

Type:	Issue Overview

Format:	Article

Language:	English

Country:	United States of America

Annotation:	This commentary addresses some problems common in expert- witness work and recommends ways in which the legal system, the scientists, and educational institutions can enhance the roles of experts.

Abstract:	Judges could make the expert witness status more respectable by having judges use criteria for recognition of experts that are tied to their capacity to evaluate evidence admissible in the case under the Daubert v. Merrell Dow interpretation. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court (1992-93 term) made clear that Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence gives the trial judge the task of ensuring that a purported scientific expert's testimony pertains to "scientific knowledge" tied to scientific methods and procedures and to a body of known facts or ideas accepted as true on good grounds and as relevant to the case. The Court reaffirmed Rule 702's requirement that an expert witness be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Further, judges should experiment with hiring expert witnesses to work for the court rather than for the adversaries. Also, the consultant and witness roles should be separated. Scientists differ in their abilities to explain and argue. Consultants, including both parties' experts and court-appointed "masters," can be especially helpful in the pretrial stage. Scientists and physicians should be afforded the opportunity for training in legal procedures, courtroom techniques, and conflicts of interest. Those experienced in the work of an expert witness should engage in relevant data collection and publish research about the process and its results. 9 references

Main Term(s):	Court procedures

Index Term(s):	Expert witnesses; Rules of evidence



	To cite this abstract, use the following link: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=166129

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.

PUBLICATIONS

NCJRS Abstract

Find in a Library