Month: August 2019

Who Qualifies as An Expert?

Posted on by Shawn Wygant

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states:

“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”[1]

At PsychLaw.net we remember that because it carries such an “aura of infallibility,” [2]  scientific testimony can create difficult problems for our courts.   Summarizing the literature, one respected commentator has written:

“[t]here is virtual unanimity among courts and commentators that evidence perceived by jurors to be ‘scientific’ in nature will have particularly, persuasive effect.” [3]

Just who is an expert?   Professor Margaret Berger, Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Brooklyn School of Law, recommends a “Two-Pronged Test”:[4]

“To ascertain whether a proposed expert is qualified to act as a witness, a court must undertake a two-step inquiry:

  1. The court should determine whether the proffered expert has minimal educational or experiential qualifications in a field that is relevant to a subject which will assist the trier of fact.
  1. If the expert passes this threshold test, the court should further compare the expert’s area of expertise with the particular opinion the expert seeks to offer. The expert should be permitted to testify only if the expert’s par­ticular expertise, however acquired, enables the expert to give an opin­ion that is capable of assisting the trier of fact.” Ibid.

Despite erudite descriptions such as Professor Berger’s, others have observed: “In practice, an expert is whoever the court wants to recognize.”[5]  This “practice” has found our courts admitting some exceedingly questionable expert testimony.  For example, In re Estate of Hoover, 615 N.E.2d 736 (Ill. 1993) affirmed the right of litigants to offer a psychiatric witnesses to give an opinion on the issue of undue influence and competency to testify at trial.  Because the psychiatrist never examined the decedent, his testimony relied on a “psychiatric autopsies”.  In doing so, he never saw the patient about whom he expressed opinions.

Indeed, a  number of courts have upheld litigant’s rights to have people skilled in social science measurement testify.  Some courts have allowed testimony regarding consumer preferences or habits.  Experts in these cases have relied on survey evidence, testifying on subjects as arcane as product confusion.[6]

Unfortunately, we at PsychLaw.net realize the qualifications of an expert has rarely been an issue on appeal.[7]

Perhaps some of these alarming circumstances built the tide that came ashore as Daubert and Kuhmo Tire.  Since these notable cases, a number of courts have begun to draw a line.  One important opinion came out of New Hampshire.  In Hoffinan LaRoche, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 33 (D.N.H. 1995), the federal district judge held that the mere fact that a scientific expert testifies that a scientific fact is generally accepted is insufficient, in and of itself, to estab­lish that conclusion.  As a result, we at PsychLaw.net recommend the following issues for consideration when reviewing the status of a proposed expert.

 Treating Therapist vs. Expert Witness

Given Federal Rule 702, and its state variations, it would seem that an appropriately licensed, or certified, treating therapist would qualify as an expert witness. Treating therapists typically have considerable contact with their patients; and as a result, appear eminently qualified to express opinions regarding the people they treat.  In fact, this is an example of how appearances can deceive. Ultimately a mental health professional’s status as a treating therapist precludes their qualifying as an expert witness.

 Therapeutic Alliance vs. Objectivity

We at PsychLaw.net remind the reader that in any legal proceeding, an expert witness is obligated ‑ above all else ‑ to testify in an objective and candid manner.  In their relationships with their patients, however, treating therapists value a “therapeutic alliance” more than objectivity and candor.[8]  Therapeutic alliances develop over the course of treatment allowing patients to feel that their therapist is genuinely committed to their welfare.[9]

In response to a therapeutic alliance with their therapist, patients feel that the therapist understands them ‑ and their life circumstances ‑ as the patients themselves comprehend those issues.  Therapeutic alliances also involve patients regarding their therapist as a warm, nonjudgmental figure.[10]  The relevant research clearly demonstrates that a therapeutic alliance is a necessary condition for effective treatment.[11]  Without a therapeutic alliance prevailing between therapist and patient, treatment will fail.[12] In 1992, the first author pointed out the inevitable conflicts between the roles of treating therapist and expert witness (or evaluator).

“Ultimately, therapists find it difficult to competently evaluate their clients ‑ a therapeutic alliance between client and therapist inevitably reduces the therapist’s objectivity.  Conversely, evaluators find it difficult to respond therapeutically to the subjects of their evaluations ‑ neutrality and objectivity mitigate against therapeutic alliances.  As a result, it is the rare therapist who can respond simultaneously and effectively to both therapeutic and evaluative responsibilities.  Psychologists who ignore these limitations can find themselves trapped in the ethical pitfalls of dual relationships.”[13]

_________________________________________________________________________________________—

[1].       Melton, G.B., Petrial, J., Poythress, N.G. & Slobogin, C. (1997).  Psychological evaluations for the courts – 2nd Ed. New York: Guilford Press (p.16).

[2].       The “Aura of scientific infallibility@ quotation is from Paul C. Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States. a Half-Century Later, 80 Colum. L Rev. 1197, 1237 (1980).

See also: Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 926 (1983) (Blackmun, J., dissenting); United States v. Anderson, 851 F.2d 384, 393 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert denied, 488 U.S. 1012 (1989) (prejudicial impact of expert testimony offered against the accused); United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 1973) (prejudicial impact of expert testimony offered by criminal defendant in support of a defense).

See also:

Giannelli, Paul C. (1993) AJunk Science@: The Criminal Cases, 84 J. Crim. L & Criminology 105,122-­23 (concludes that “[w]ithout an effective right to defense experts, the accused often lacks the resources to combat junk science”).

See also:

Vidmar, N.J. & Schuller, R. A. (1989). Juries and Expert Evidence: Social Framework Testimony, LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS., Autumn, at 133, 166 And see: e.g., Commonwealth v. Garcia, 588 A.2d 951, 955 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991), appeal denied, 604 A.2d 248 (Pa. 1992) (“Jurors are human and may be unduly impressed by an expert, his credentials, and ultimately his opinion, >even though, upon reflection, they would realize that in the particular field under discussion they are as much at home as the expert.’@).

[3].       Strong, John W. (1992). Language and Logic in Expert Testimony Limiting Expert Testimony by Restrictions of Function, Reliability, and Form, 71 OR. L. Rev. 349, 361.

[4].       Berger, M.A. (1994). Evidentiary Framework, In. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. New York: Federal Judicial Center. Pg 38-117 (p. 55).

[5].       Englade, K. (1990).  Mad Science: When It Comes to Psychological Testimony, Everybody’s an Expert. So Who a Does a Jury Believe?, 32 STUDENT LAW. 31, 33.

[6].       Upjohn Co. v Rachelle Laboratories. Inc., (1981. CA6 Mich) 661 F2d 1105, 1111, 1112 (on the basis of a survey of 40 sales people, market development manager for drug com­pany  testified on approximate cost in salesmen’s time of drug recall effort.  The trial court emphasized the experience of the witness, expense and effort in survey design, and that expert was available for cross).

[7].       Whitcomb, D. (1992).  When The Victim Is a Child 20 (2d Ed. 1992).Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dep’t of Justice.

[8].       Horvath, A.O. & Lubrorsky, L. (1993).  The role of the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy.  Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 561-573.

[9].       Whiston, S.C. & Sexton, T.L. (1993).  An overview of psychotherapy outcome research:  Implications for practice.  Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 43-51.

[10].     Truax, C.B. & Mithchell, K.K. (1971).  Research on certain interpersonal skills in relation to process and outcome.  In A.E. Bergin & S.L. Garfield (Eds), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change: An empirical analysis. New York: John Wiley.

[11].     Luborsky, L., Crits-Christoph, P., Mintz, J. & Auerbach, A. (1988).  Who will benefit from psychotherapy?  Predicting therapeutic outcomes.  New York: Basic Books.

[12].     Truax, C.B. & Carkhuff, R.R. (1967).  Toward effective counseling and psychotherapy.  Chicago: Aldine.

[13].     Campbell, T.W. (1992).  Psychotherapy with children of divorce: The pitfalls of triangulated relationships.  Psychotherapy, 29, 646-652 (p. 651).

Gatekeeping with the Behavioral Sciences

Posted on by Shawn Wygant

With the conclusion of the Daubert trilogy,[1] our courts face the daunting task of applying criteria of validity[2] and reliability[3] to all proposed expert testimony.[4]  This comes at a time when testimony from the behavioral sciences[5] is growing at an exponential rate.[6]  Unfortunately, research demonstrates that our courts are not prepared for this important task.[7]  Certainly, our courts are not in a position to become amateur scientists,[8] and the costs involved in hiring neutral “expert” experts [9] is clearly prohibitive in most cases.

Fortunately, at PsychLaw.net we find that the relevant research demonstrates that with access to the tools of scientific reasoning, judgments concerning validity and reliability dramatically improve.[10] But where the courts’ have sought to educate themselves for their gatekeeping responsibilities, a difficult tension has developed because of the strictures against the acquisition of knowledge ex parte.[11]

The intersection of the behavioral sciences and law is not new.  Behavioral scientists have been informing legal proceedings for hundreds of years.  Indeed, since the twelfth century the law has recognized mental incapacity as a defense to criminal conduct.[12] Then, the testimony of mental health professionals was first reviewed by the United States Supreme Court in 1908 in Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908).  Since then, behav­ioral science expertise has been applied to a wide variety of situations where litigant characteristics may be in issue.

For as long as mental status has been legally relevant in criminal prosecutions, behavioral scientists have been asked to address a defendant’s mental state both at the time of the crime, and at the time of the trial.[13]  Behav­ioral scientists have been asked to provide expert testimony concerning whether an individual’s behavior and characteristics fit within a par­ticular profile (e.g., as a drug courier);[14] or whether the individual experienced delayed memories of  childhood sexual abuse;[15] or whether a child sexual abuse survivor was experiencing a syndrome.[16]

For example, at PsychLaw.net  we look to a recent text Psychological Evaluations for the Courts which describes nine types of competency examinations, six mental state defenses, five sentencing evaluations, eight civil commitment exams and eighteen additional psychological evaluations courts routinely ask for.[17] Assessments of dangerousness serve as additional examples of the legal system seeking guidance from the behavioral sciences.   Assessing dangerousness typically addresses whether the individual is presently dangerous, or likely to be dangerous in the future.[18]  Decisions involving a finding of dangerousness in­clude:

  1.  Decisions to grant bail, and the level at which bail is set;
  2. Decisions concerning the waiver of juveniles charged with serious crimes in adult courts;
  3. Sentencing decisions following criminal convictions, including release on probation;
  4. Decisions regarding work-release and furlough programs for in­carcerated offenders;
  5. Parole and other conditional-release determinations for offenders;
  6. Decisions regarding whether to remove a child from the home in child abuse or bat­tery cases;
  7. Decisions to commit or release persons committed under quasi-criminal statutes for sex offenses;
  8. Resolutions to civilly commit criminal defendants after having been found incompetent to stand trial or when found not guilty by reason of insanity and release procedures for these individuals;
  9. Decisions regarding the special handling of disruptive prisoners;
  10. Decisions regarding the transfer of civilly committed patients to hospitals with security;
  11. Commitment of drug addicts;
  12. Findings concerning the emergency and long-term involuntary commitment of the mentally ill;
  13. Decisions con­cerning conditional and unconditional release of involuntary committed mentally ill pa­tients;
  14. Decisions concerning the continuing hospitalization of criminal defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity;
  15. Decisions to employ special legal provisions or sentencing proceedings for habitual offenders; and
  16. Decisions to impose the death penalty.[19]

The value of behavioral science information is not limited to understanding mentally ill persons, dangerous persons, or other populations of concern to the law.  Expertise from the behavioral sciences can be used to address the characteristics of litigants in numerous situations. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has dealt with behavioral science evidence many times.  For instance, in Lockhart v McCree, 476 US 162, 106 S Ct 1758 (1986), the Court was asked to consider the constitutional significance of the behavioral science research that described capital juries as biased in favor of the prosecution.  Jurors who could not impose the death penalty were being systematically removed from capital panels.[20]  The relevant research demonstrated that this later group of jurors were less inclined to convict defendants in capital cases.

Today, judges are required to work hard to understand behavioral science data.  In Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U S 579, 113 S Ct 2786, (1993), the United States Supreme Court held that:

“…the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” 113 S Ct at 2795.

Compared to lay witnesses, experts purport to offer testimony that is scientific.  Justice Blackmun indicated that by using the term “scientific”, the witness implies a “grounding in the methods and procedures of science”. Id. 113 S Ct at 2795.  The word “knowledge”, the Court instructed, “connotes more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation”. Id.  The Court made it clear that:

“…in order to qualify as ‘scientific knowledge’, an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method.  Proposed testimony must be supported by appropriate validation – i.e., ‘good grounds’, based on what is known.” Id.113 S Ct at 2795.

Basing its rule as to admissibility on reasoning and methodology, the Court quoted from a learned treatise and offered:

“Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry.” Id. 509 U S 579, 113 S Ct at 2796.

The Court instructed that there is now a “Key Question” which must be answered and that is:

“..whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact will be whether it can be (and has been) tested…” emphasis added Id. 509 U S 579, 113 S Ct at 2796.

The Court’s instruction to the trial courts was that when “expert”, “scientific” testimony is offered:

“..the trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104 (a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.  This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Id. 509 U S 579, 113 S Ct at 2796.

 Because experts are permitted wide latitude in their opinions and are not required to base their pronouncements on first-hand knowledge, the Court required that “the expert’s opinion must have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline”.  113 S Ct at 2796.  We at PsychLaw.net  find that in this analysis, courts are required to excuse proposed experts who do not have a grasp of the “knowledge and experience of [their] discipline”.

Emphasizing that the  “focus….must be solely on principles and methodology” 509 U S 579, 113 S Ct at 2797,  the Court’s analysis cites to United States v Smith, 869 F2d 348, 353-354 (CA7 1989) and informs that “error  rate” in the predictions and techniques espoused in the opinions of the experts must be considered. Id. 509 U S 579,  S Ct at 2797; 125 L Ed 2d at 483.

Grounding its admissibility analysis in the principles and methodology of science, the Court notes:

“….that scientists typically distinguish between ‘validity’ (does the principle support what it purports to show?) and ‘reliability’ (does application of the principle produce consistent results?)…..our reference here is to evidentiary reliability–that is, trustworthiness…..In a case involving scientific evidence, evidentiary reliability will be based upon scientific validity.” Daubert 509 U S 579, 113 S Ct at 2795 n. 9, emphasis in original.

1  The Daubert trilogy is: Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579; 113 S Ct 2786 (1993); Joiner v General Elec Co, 78 F3d 524, 529 (CA 11, 1996), reversed as: General Electric Co. v Joiner, 522 US 136; 118 S Ct 512 (1997); Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137; 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).

 2  See: Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579; 113 S Ct 2786 at 2795; n. 9, (1993) “In a case involving scientific evidence, evidentiary reliability will be based upon scientific validity.” emphasis in original. And see: Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137; 119 S.Ct. 1167 at 1174: Expert testimony must demonstrate a valid connection to the pertinent facts as a precondition to admissibility.

3  See: Daubert 509 U S 579, 113 S Ct 2786 at 2795; n. 9 “…scientists typically distinguish between ‘validity’ (does the principle support what it purports to show?) and ‘reliability’ (does application of the principle produce consistent results?)…..our reference here is to evidentiary reliability–that is, trustworthiness.” And see: Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v Carmichael, 526 U. S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, at 1176 – 1177 ( 1999): The court must determine both the validity of the expert’s qualifications and the reliability of the proposed testimony.

4  Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v Carmichael, 526 U. S. 137; 119 S.Ct. 1167; (March, 1999) simply held:  “Daubert…..applies to all expert testimony.”119 S.Ct. 1167 at 1174.

5  By “Behavioral Sciences” we mean all those applied disciplines who base their knowledge and practice on the science of human behavior, including mental, emotional, psycho-physiological and social processes.  For the jurist, these will typically include: psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, substance abuse counselors, licensed professional counselors, and even pastoral counselors.  There are some behavioral sciences professionals who identify themselves as “therapists” or “psychotherapists.”  In our experience, behavioral science professionals who cannot legitimately identify themselves as psychiatrists or psychologists are more inclined to adopt the “therapist” label. These professionals often assume this designation to compensate for their lack of a doctoral degree.

6  Approximately 86% of civil trials contain expert testimony in some form.

Gross, S.R. & Syverud, K.D. (1991). Getting to no: A study of settlement negotiations and the selection of cases for trial. 90 Michigan Law Review 319. And see: Gross, S.R.(1991). “Expert Evidence”, 1991Wisconsin Law Review 1114, 1119  finding that experts testified in 80% of civil trials studied for the article. See, also: Imwinkelried, E.J. (1994). The Next Step After Daubert: Developing a Similarly Epistemological Approach to Ensuring the Reliability of Nonscientific Expert Testimony, 15 Cardozo Law Review 2271, 2273; and see McClellan, E. (1997). Comment, Sharpening the Focus on Daubert’s Distinction Between Scientific and Nonscientific Expert Testimony, 34 San Diego Law Review 1719, 1721 Asserting that the use of expert testimony has increased proportionately with the increase in technology in society.

7  See, e.g.: Kovera, M.B. and McAuliff, B.D. (2000). The Effects of Peer Review and Evidence Quality on Judge Evaluations of Psychological Science: Are Judges Effective Gatekeepers? 85 Journal of Applied Psychology 574-586. at pg 583: “…the scientific training judges receive is insufficient to help them recognize flawed psychological research….” And see: Lehman, D.R., Lempert, R.O. & Nisbett, R.E. (1988). The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday life events, 43 American Psychologist  431-443: Judges are not seen to be more skilled in the evaluation of science than lay people.  In fact, Lehman and colleagues demonstrated that legal education does not improve either methodological or statistical reasoning abilities. See, also: Gatowski, S. I.; Dobbin, S.A.; Richardson, J.T.; Ginsburg, G.P.; Merlino, M.L. & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post –Daubert World. 24 Law and Human Behavior 433-458.  This October, 2001 study with a survey frame of “…9,715 state trial court judges from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.”  Concluded that: “…although judges surveyed reported that they found Daubert criteria useful for determining the admissibility of proffered expert evidence, the extent to which judges understand and can properly apply the criteria when assessing the validity and reliability of proffered scientific evidence was questionable at best.”  pg. 452.

8  In Daubert, Chief Justice Rehnquist offered: “I do not doubt that Rule 702 confides to the judge some gatekeeping responsibility in deciding questions of the admissibility of proffered expert testimony.  But I do not think it imposes on them either the obligation or the authority to become amateur scientists in order to perform that role.” 113 S Ct 2786 at 2799. emphasis added.

[9]  In Daubert, the Court referred to Rule 706, which allows a trial judge to call an expert of the judge’s own choosing. 113 S.Ct. 2786 at 2797-98. And see: Memorandum and Order on Motion to Quash Notice of Subpoena in In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 151 F.R.D. 540 (E. & S.D.N.Y.1993); Cecil & Willing, Court Appointed Experts: Defining The Role of Experts Appointed Under Federal Rule of Evidence 706, at 88-95 (Fed.Jud.Ctr.1993).  Further, as Judge Weinstein has pointed out, where the court-appointed expert does not testify at trial, the expert’s role can be characterized as that of “technical advisor” to the court, and depositions of such experts may not be required.  See, e.g.: In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 151 F.R.D. 540 at 544-46; and see also Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 157 (1st Cir.1988).

[10]  See, e.g.: Lehman, D.R., Lempert, R.O. & Nisbett, R.E. (1988) The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday life events, 43 American Psychologist 431-443. And see: Fong, G.T., Krantz, D.H. & Nisbett, R.E. (1986) The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems, 18 Cognitive Psychology  253.

Fong, Krantz and Nisbett demonstrated that research subjects given brief training in methodological reasoning provided more scientifically sophisticated answers to a series of real-world problems.

11 Both Congress and the Judicial Conference of the United States have set general limits on the extent to which judges may acquire potentially prejudicial knowledge.  See, e.g.:  28 U.S.C.  455 (1994).  Section 455 establishes the bases upon which a federal judge, federal magistrate, or Justice of the Supreme Court may be disqualified from presiding over a case:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding …. Id.  Canon 3(C) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges disqualifies judges on the same bases.  See Office of the Gen. Counsel, Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Code of Conduct for United States Judges 7 (1997).

[12]  See, e.g.: Gray, S.H. (1972). The Insanity Defense: Historical Development and Contemporary Relevance. 10 American Criminal Law Review 555.

[13]  See, e.g.: Perlin, M. (1994). The jurisprudence of the insanity defense. Durham, NC, Carolina Academic Press; And see: See, e.g.: Paull, D. (1993). Fitness to stand trial. Springfield, IL, Charles C. Thomas Publishing Ltd.

[14]  See, e.g.: U.S. v Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980).

[15]  See, e.g.: Lindsay &Read (1994).  Incest Resolution Psychotherapy and Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse: A Cognitive Perspective, 8 Applied Cognitive Psychology 281-292. And see: Lorandos, D. and Campbell, T. (1995) Myths and Realities of Sexual Abuse Evaluation and Diagnosis: A Call for Judicial Guidelines.7 Issues in Child Abuse Accusations 1.

 [16]  State v Foret, 628 So2d 1116, 1127 (1993) the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome – inadmissible.

[17]  Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G. and Slobogin, C. (1997) (2nd ed.) Psychological Evaluations for the Courts. New York – Guilford Press.  These authors describe well over forty situations in which courts routinely ask psychologists for evaluations:

  1. Criminal Matters – A. Competency – 1.Competency to stand trial – 2.Competency to consent to a search or seizure – 3.Competency to confess – 4.Competency to plead guilty – 5.Competency to waive right to counsel – 6.Competency to refuse an insanity defense – 7.Competency to testify – 8.Competency to be sentenced – 9.Competency to be executed – B. Mental State at Time of Offense – 1.Insanity defense – 2.Automatism defense – 3.Mens Rea (Diminished capacity) – 4.Self-defense, provocation, duress, and entrapment – 5.Defenses based on intoxication – 6.The “guilty by mentally ill plea” – C. Sentencing 1.Repeat offender statutes – 2.Sexual offender statutes – 3.Youthful offenders – 4.Drug dependent offenders – 5.Capital sentencing – II. Civil Matters – A. Civil Commitment – 1.Mental disorder – 2.Capacity to make treatment decisions – 3.Danger to others – 4.Danger to self – 5.Grave disability / inability to care for self – 6.Need for treatment – 7.Least restrictive alternative – 8.Outpatient commitment – B. Civil Competencies – 1.Guardianship – 2.Testamentary capacity – C. Compensating Mental Injuries: Workers’ Compensation and Torts – 1.Worker’s Compensation law – 2.The tort of emotional distress – D. Federal Anti-discrimination and Entitlement Laws – 1.Americans with Disabilities Act – 2.Fair Housing Amendments Act – 3.Social Security Laws – III. Children and Families – A. Juvenile Delinquency – 1.Competency – 2.Amenability to treatment – B. Child Abuse and Neglect – 1.Legal definitions of child maltreatment (physical abuse, physical neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect.) – 2.Termination of parental rights – C. Child Custody and Divorce – 1.Best-interests standard – 2.Least detrimental alternative -3.Primary-caretaker standard – 4.Joint custody (physical and/or legal).

[18]  See, e.g.:Slobogin, –  A Jurisprudence of Dangerousness as a Criterion in the Criminal Process. In Sales, B.D. & Shuman, D. (Eds.) (1995).  Law, Mental Health, and Mental Disorder,  Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

[19]  See : Zenoff, E.H. (1985) Controlling the Dangers of Dangerousness: The ABA Stan­dards and Beyond, 53 George Washington Law Review 562 Stating that “[a]ssessments and predictions of dangerousness permeate every stage of the criminal justice, juvenile justice, and mental health systems.”

[20]  See e.g.: Faden, R., Beauchamp,T. & King,N. (1986)  A History and Theory of Informed Consent, New York: Oxford University Press.

[21] Spaulding, (1985) Testamentary Competency: Reconciling Doctrine with the   Role of the Expert, 9 Law and Human Behavior 113.

[22]  See e.g., People v. Nelson, 4 10 N.E.2d 476 (III.App. 1980).

[23] See e.g.: Lipton, (1988) A New Look at the Use of Social Science Evidence in Trademark Litigation, 78 Trademark Reporter 32.

[24]  See e.g., Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).

[25]  See e.g., U.S. ex rel. Free v. Mginnis, Peters and Burns, 818 F.Supp. 1098 (1992).

[26]  See e.g., Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972).

[27]  Most famous of the studies in this realm are the “Baldus data” used by civil rights groups in an effort to show that states apply the death penalty in a racially discriminatory fashion. Baldus, Woodruff and Pulaski (1990) Equal Justice and the Death Penalty Boston: Northeastern University Press.

[28]  Compare:  Ewing, C.P. (1990) Psychological Self-­Defense: A Proposed Justification for Battered Women Who Kill, 14 Law & Human Behavior 579  with: Morse, S.J. (1990)  The Misbegotten Marriage of Soft Psychology and Bad Low: Psychological Self-Defense as Justification for Homicide, 14 Law & Human Behavior 595. And see: Etlinger, L. (1995) Social Science Research in Domestic Violence Law: A Proposal to Focus on Evidentiary Use, 58 Albany Law Review 1259.  Providing an in depth study of the use and reliability of social science expert testimony in domestic violence cases and stating that there are a number of problems with the use of social science research by courts including research and judicial bias, natural tension between science and the adversary system, inherent problems with social science methodology and limitations of existing evidence rules.

[29]  Compare: Goodman, S.G. et al. (1991) Child Witnesses and the Confrontation Clause: The American Psychological Association’s Brief in Maryland v Craig, 15 Law& Hum. Behav. 13 and Goodman, S.G., et.al. (1992). The Best Evidence Produces the Best Law, 16 Law & Human Behavior 244; with:  Underwager, R. & Wakefield, H. (1992). Poor Psychology Produces Poor Law, 16 Law & Human Behavior 233. See also Rustad, M. & Koeing, T. (1993) The Supreme Court and Junk Social Science: Selective Distortion in Amicus Briefs, 72 North Carolina Law Review 91, 128  Conducting a review of the way partisan organizations distort social science evidence in amici briefs submitted to the Supreme Court and concluding that “(j)unk social science is characterized by quotes from social scientific research taken out of context, misleading statistical presentations, denigration of studies whose results conflicted with the argument, and anecdotes masquerading as social science.”

[30] Compare: McCloskey, M.E. & Egeth, H.E. (1983) Eyewitness Identification: What Can a Psychologist Tell a Jury?, 38 American Psychologist 550; McCloskey, M.E.  et al. (1986) The Experimental Psychologist in Court: The Ethics of Expert Testimony, 10 Law & Human Behavior 1; Elliott, R. (1993)  Expert Testimony About Eyewitness Identification: A Critique, 17 Law & Human Behavior  423;   with:  Loftus, E.F. (1979) Eyewitness Testimony; Loftus, E.F. (1983)  Silence Is Not Golden, 38 American Psychologist 564 ; Kipling D. and Williams, K.D. , et.al. (1992) Eyewitness Evidence and Testimony, in Handbook of  Psychology and Law 141 ( Kagehiro & Laufer, eds., 1992) Kassin,S.M. et al. (1994) Deja Vu All Over Again: Elliott’s Critique of Eyewitness Experts, 18 Law & Human Behavior 203.   See also Bermant,G. (1986) Two Conjectures About the Issue of Expert Testimony, 10 Law & Human Behavior 97. And Kassin, S.M. et al. (1989) The “General Acceptance” of Psychological Research on Eyewitness Testimony: A Survey of the Experts, 44 American Psychologist 1089.

[31]  See, e.g.: Loftus, E.F. (1986). Ten years in the Life of an Expert Witness, 10 Law and Human Behavior 241.

[32] Id at 294; 660 P.2d at 1220-21.  See also: State v McCutcheon, 162 Ariz. 54, 56-58; 781 P.2d 31, 33-35 (1985) (discussing Chapple); State v Poland, 144 Ariz. 388; 388-89; 698 P.2d 183, 193-94 (1985).

[33]  See, e.g.: Rimer, S. (2000) “Life after Death Row” The New York Times Magazine December 10th, 2000 pg 100; Ripley, A. “After Exoneration” Time Magazine December 11th, 2000, pg 96; Reza, H.G. (2001) “In the DNA” California Lawyer April, 2001 pg 16.

[34] Connors, Lundregan, Miller & McEwen. (1996) Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the  Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial, Washington, D.C. National Institute of Justice.

[35]  See also: Wolfson. “That’s the man!” Well, Maybe Not: The Case for Eyewitness Identification Testimony.” 26 Litigation 5 (Winter 2000). See, also: Gawande, A. (2001) “Under Suspicion” The New Yorker January 8th, 2001 pg 50. Reporting on research which has found eyewitness   identification errors as high as 80%. And see: Smith, S.M, Lindsay, R.C.L. and Pryke, S. (2000) Postdiction of Eyewitness Errors: Can False Identifications Be Diagnosed? 85 Journal of Applied Psychology 542.

[36]  In Smithers, the Court noted that one study estimated that half of all wrongful convictions result from false identifications.  Id. at 312 note 1 (citing Loftus. (1986) Ten years in the Life of an Expert Witness, 10 Law and Human Behavior 241. It is noteworthy that the court cited old data. More recent studies, supported by DNA evidence demonstrate that the rate of wrongful conviction based upon faulty eyewitness identification is staggering.

Key Kumho Tire Concepts

Posted on by Shawn Wygant

Read together, Daubert, Joiner and Kumho Tire make it clear that the trial judge is required to independently evaluate:

  1. the reasonableness of the expert’s reliance on his data, and
  2. the data underlying an expert’s opinion.

At  PsychLaw.net, we teach that these are now preconditions to the admissibility of the evidence under Rule 702.[1] Although Daubert was a Rule 702 decision focusing on an expert’s methodology, the reasoning in Daubert is also relevant to Rule 703 issues relating to the data underlying an expert’s opinion because the two rules are interrelated. [2] Thus, appellate courts require district courts to act as “gatekeepers”, ensuring that the scientific data supporting the expert’s opinion are reasonable, valid and reliable.[3]

At  PsychLaw.net we take note that as commentators Faigman, Kaye et al emphasize, the more difficult question that courts must face under Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho is: How dependable must expert evidence be to be good enough for admission?[4]  Professors Faigman, Kaye et al go on to explain:

“In a nutshell, Daubert and its progeny–perhaps especially its progeny–brought the scientific culture to the courtroom. Judges are now expected to bring some critical judgment, informed by knowledge of the way empirical propositions are tested, to expert evidence admissibility decisions.”[5]

 Indeed, Joiner instructs that conclusions and methodology are not completely distinct from one another.  Trained experts often extrapolate from existing data, but the Court instructed that neither Daubert nor the Federal Rules of Evidence require a district court to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the word or subjective experience of the expert.  As the Joiner court went on to explain, a court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.[6] As a result of these many explicit as well as implicit requirements, Daubert hearing are now de rigueur.

Key Kumho Tire Concepts:

  1. TRIAL COURT  Must have considerable leeway in deciding whether the proposed testimony and the proposed expert is reliable. 119 S.Ct. 1167 at 1176
  2. TRIAL COURT  Must determine both the validity of the expert’s qualifications and the reliability of the proposed testimony 119 S.Ct. 1167 at 1176 – 1177
  3. EXPERTS Must demonstrate a valid connection to the pertinent facts as a precondition to admissibility 119 S.Ct. 1167 at 1174
  4. EXPERTS Whether basing testimony on professional studies or personal experience, must employ in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field. 119 S.Ct. 1167 at 1176

[1]  Daubert rejects the general acceptance test for evaluating reliability of scientific evidence and requires a 702 & 703 analysis Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2799, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 485 (1993).

[2] Daubert reliability standards apply to data issues arising under Rule 703. See: In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. 35 F.3d 717, 748-749 (3d Cir. 1994)       cert. denied 513 U.S. 1090 (1995) (applying same standard avoids need of making metaphysical distinctions between problems with underlying data itself as opposed to problems with the methods used to analyze the data).

[3]  For early examples of the Judge as gatekeeper in evaluating an expert and the expert’s data, See: In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig, 35 F.3d 717, 742 (3rd Cir. 1994), cert. denied. 513 U.S. 1090 (1995) (gatekeeping role with regard to experts includes independent evaluation of reasonableness of the data relied on by experts under Fed. R. Evid. 703).  See, also:

2nd Circuit   United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924. 938 (2nd Cir.          1993), cert. denied., 511 U.S. 1070 (1994) (Daubert principles interpreting FRE 702 apply equally to FRE 703).

3rd  Circuit   In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717. 742 (3rd Cir.       1994), cert. denied. 513 U.S. 1690 (1995) (gatekeeping role with regard to experts includes independent evaluation of reasonableness of data relied          on by experts FRE 703).

5th Circuit   See: Allen v. Pennsylvania Eng’g Corp., 102 F.3d 194, 197 n.4 (5th Cir. 1996) (Courts using Daubert     standard for admissibility of expert testimony should pay close attention when expert witnesses depart from generally accepted scientific methodologies, because judge or jury may not be junior scientists, equipped to evaluate scientific innovation; Guillory v. Domtar Industries, Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1331 (5th Cir. 1996) (it is the role of the district Judge as gatekeeper for expert evidence to exclude evidence tainted by farce or fiction).

7th Circuit    See: Porter v. Whitehall Laboratories. Inc., 9 F.3d 607, 614 (7th Cir. 1993)          (court properly excluded testimony not grounded in scientific method­ Daubert analysis).

8th Circuit    See: Sorensen by and through Dunbar v. Shaklee Corp.,31 F.3d 638, 650­-651 (8th Cir. 1994) (After a Daubert analysis the court properly excluded testimony because scientific basis of proposed testimony was too speculative).

11th Circuit  See: Raynor v. Merrell Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 104 F3d 1371, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“Daubert creates no obvious bar to applying Rule 703 as we have done in the past”; finding that trial court properly excluded  proffered  testimony under Rule 702); Ambrosini v. Labarraque. 101 F.3d 129,133-134,     137-139 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. dismissed, – U.S. -, 117 S. Ct. 1572 (1997) (as gatekeeper concerning scientific evidence using Daubert standard, district court must engage in preliminary assessment as to whether reasoning or methodology underlying testimony is scientifically valid and whether reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to facts at issue); Ealy v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 897 F.2d 1159, 1161­- 1162 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 950 (1990) (pre-Daubert case in which court excluded testimony as without scientific foundation in face of wealth of published contrary data).

[4]  Faigman, D.L.; Kaye, D.H.; Saks, M.J. & Sanders, J. (2000) How Good Is Good Enough?: Expert Evidence under Daubert and Kumho. 50 Case Western Reserve Law Review 645. See pg 652.

[5]  Id. at pg 656.

[6]Joiner, 522 US at146, 118 S Ct at 519.  The “ipse dixit” language of Joiner has proved popular with lower courts.  See, e.g., Freeport-McMoran Resources Partners v B-B Paint Corp, 56 F Supp2d 823 (ED Mich 1999)      The court found that the expert’s opinions are nothing more than his own “experience” and tied to each defendant through nothing more than his “ipse dixit.”

 

Evidentiary Reliability and Validity

Posted on by Shawn Wygant

          Quoting from Judge Learned Hand in: Hand, Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony, 15 Harv. L.Rev. 40, 54 (1901), the Supreme Court explained in Kumho that experts of all kinds tie observations to conclusions through the use of “general truths derived from … specialized experience.”.[1]    To meet the validity and reliability challenge, the Court instructed that the gatekeeper:

  1. Must have considerable leeway in deciding whether the proposed testimony and the proposed expert is reliable;[2]
  2. Must determine the validity of the expert’s opinion, qualifications and the reliability of the proposed testimony[3] – and –
  3. The proffered expert’s opinion, must demonstrate a valid connection to the pertinent facts as a precondition to admissibility.[4]

It is our position at PsychLaw.net that the well prepared cross examiner will never overlook considerations of reliability and validity when dealing with mental health professionals.[5]  Issues of reliability may be compromised when mental health professionals are allowed to rely on the opinions of others when giving expert testimony.[6]  In some cases the sources upon which an expert relies for their opinions are of such little value that the testimony will not assist the jury in arriving at an intelligent and sound verdict.  In such cases, the rule requires the gatekeeper to examine the reliability of an expert’s sources to determine whether they satisfy the threshold established by the rule.[7]

Simply stated, validity involves correct application. We at PsychLaw.net define six kinds of validity in our glossary and explain that validity is the process by which we attempt to accurately communicate.  Following Daubert many courts have laid down bright validity lines for admissibility:

  1. Expert testimony is to be based upon scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact, not upon generally acceptable theory. Hopkins v Dow Corning Corp., 33 F. 3d 1116 (9th Cir. 1994);
  2. Expert testimony lacks sufficient scientific validity to be admissible absent scientific studies on expert’s theories, scientific peer review or general acceptance of theories or methodology. Sorensen v Shaklee Corp., 31 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 1994);
  3. Expert testimony must be based upon scientifically valid reasoning.  Expert’s belief on probable cause is not admissible in the absence of adequate explanation of how the witness’s expertise enables the expert to testify on the likely cause of injury. Watkins v Schriver, 52 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 1995);
  4. The court may consider whether the expert’s theory has been tested, subject to peer review, published, generally accepted and has a known rate of errors. Peitzmeier v Hennessy Industries, 97 F.3d 293 (8th Cir. 1996);
  5. At a minimum, a recognized group of scientists in the field must accept the expert’s methodology as scientifically reliable.Lust v Merrell Dow, 89 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996); and
  6. The court must determine that expert’s opinion has scientifically valid methodology which can be applied to the factual dispute. Allen v Pennsylvania Engine Corp. 192 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1996)

Shielding the Jury from Prejudicial “Junk Science”

We at PsychLaw.net emphasize that like most other evidence, expert testimony is subject to Rule 403 balancing. The Supreme Court stated that because expert testimony can be both powerful and misleading, trial judges exercise more Rule 403 control over expert testimony than lay witness testimony.[8]   Following the Rules 401, 702 and 703 challenges described previously, the well prepared cross examiner can use the Daubert hearing and voir dire to attack proffered expert testimony on prejudicial grounds.  In this way, the cross examiner asks the gatekeeper to employ a Rule 403 analysis that balances the probative value of an expert’s opinion, against the dangers of prejudice, confusion, and waste of time.  This should also be done when evaluating the reasonableness of the data underlying an expert’s opinion [FRE703].   As a corollary, the argument must be made that the probative value of an expert’s opinion must outweigh its prejudicial effect under Rule 403 for the opinion to be admissible under Rule 703.[9]

Scientific testimony often carries an “aura of infallibility.”  Summarizing the literature, one respected commentator writes that:

“[t]here is virtual unanimity among courts and commentators that evidence perceived by jurors to be ‘scientific’ in nature will have particularly, persuasive effect.”[10]

The cross examiner must call upon the gatekeeper to use a Rule 403 analysis of the proposed testimony as it may tend to confuse and often uses prejudicial language.[11]  Also, mental health professionals may speak to statistical analysis of their data and the cross examiner must be on guard against unfair prejudice in the language that is used in these situations.[12]

We at PsychLaw.net emphasize the necessity of shielding jurors from “junk science” by using the Rules and decisional law to aid the gatekeeper in making these important evidentiary rulings.  Consider a well-known study published in 1973 that found no connection between asbestos and mesothelioma.  Mesothelioma is the cruel form of lung cancer that we now know is linked uniquely to asbestos.  The study found no connection because, in a review of mortality among retirees from 26 asbestos plants, only one retired worker had died of mesothelioma. The problem was that most of the workers who contracted mesothelioma, and many did, died before reaching retirement age.  Consequently, the study included data obtained only from healthy workers. Despite this glaring flaw, this peer-reviewed, published study was not retracted until six years later.[13]

It is true that effective cross-examination may prevent misleading a jury. Nonetheless, we at PsychLaw.net recommend getting the job done before a jury is ever seated.[14]

 The Problem of Creeping Hearsay.

          As Federal Rule of Evidence 703 does not require the facts or data the expert relies upon to be admitted into evidence,[15] the cross examiner must work diligently to accomplish a Rule 703 “reasonable reliance,” and Rule 403 “more prejudicial than probative,” showing before trial.  Certainly, mental health professional rely on much that may not be admissible.  The problem for the cross examiner is that these same professionals, when called to testify, believe that this portion of the evidence rule creates a via regia for hearsay.[16]

While the Rule does not require personal knowledge and allows experts to form opinions on the basis of data that may otherwise be inadmissible, the cross examiner must guard against the use of 703 as akin to a hearsay exception.  We at PsychLaw.net teach that the  best way to manage this difficult task is with a demand for full disclosure.  Next, careful scrutiny of the data relied upon for reliability, validity and trustworthiness, must be accomplished.[17]  In this way, prejudicial hearsay, which may otherwise creep into the record, may be bared at the door.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1].       Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v Carmichael, ___ U. S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 1167,at 1174; 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999).

[2].       Id. at 119 S.Ct. 1167 at 1176.

[3].       Id. at 119 S.Ct. 1167 at 1176 – 1177.

[4].       Id. at 119 S.Ct. 1167 at 1174.

[5].       For example, see: Baumholser v Amax Coal Co., 630 F.2d 550, 553 (7th Cir. 1980) Where the reviewing court found no prejudicial error when trial judge improperly admitted geology survey relied on by expert because the trial judge allowed extensive cross-examination on reliability and the opponents produced their own experts to testify on issue. See, also: TK-7 Corp. v.  Estate of Barbouti, 993. F. 2d 722, 732-   733 (10th Cir. 1993) Where an expert was not allowed to rely on opinions of other experts because his unfamiliarity with methods and reasons underlying other expert’s conclusions precluded effective cross-examination concerning reliability.

[6].       Kibert v Peyton, 383 F.2d 566 (4th Cir. 1967) An expert witness is permitted to take into account the testimony of others as to what they observed; United States v. 1,014.16 Acres of Land, 558 F. Supp.   1238, 1242 (W.D. Mo. 1983), aff”d, 739 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir.1984) An expert is allowed to rely on, among other things, opinions of other experts.

[7].       See, i.e.: Slaughter v Southern Talc Co., 919 F.2d 304 (5th Cir. 1990).

[8].       See, i.e.: Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 U.S. 579; 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2798 (1993) quoting J. Weinstein, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is Sound; It Should Not Be Amended, 138 F.R.D. 631, 632 (1991).

[9].       For examples of expert testimony being subject to Rule 403 analysis. See, i.e.: Emigh v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 710 F. Supp. 608, 612 (W.D. Pa. 1989)  Where the court held that Fed. R. Evid. 703 may not be used as “backdoor” to get evidence before jury. For more examples of unfair prejudice, see. i.e.:

1st Circuit – See, e.g., Lynch v. Merrell-Nat’l Labs. Div. of Richardson-Merrell. Inc., 646 F. Supp. 856, 866-867 (D. Mass. 1986). aff’d, 830 F.2d 1190 (1st Cir. 1987) The court ruled that studies of analogous chemical structures relied on by plaintiffs’ experts could not be used to show causation. because of their highly speculative nature; citing Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. 703.

2d Circuit – See, e.g., Shatkin v. McDonnel-Douglas Corp., 727 F.2d 202. 208 (2nd Cir. 1984) The trial court excluded opinion based on assumptions so unrealistic and contradictory as to suggest bad faith; citing Fed. R. Evid. 403, 703; Mathie v. Fries, 935 F. Supp. 1284, 1295 1296 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). aff’d and modified on other grounds, 121 F.3d 808 (2nd  Cir. 1997) Where evidence of rape-trauma syndrome, although generally accepted in relevant scientific community, was seen to be inadmissible when offered merely to prove that sexual assault took place or to bolster witness’s credibility. because potential value of evidence was outweighed by undue prejudice to defendant.

7th Circuit –  See, e.g., Nachtsheim v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 847 F.2d 1261, 1270-1271 (7th Cir. 1988) Where the court used Fed. R. Evid. 403 analysis to exclude expert opinion under Fed. R. Evid. 703.

[10].     McCormick, et al., (1995) Evidence § 203, at 876. See, also:  Strong, J. W. (1992). Language and Logic in Expert Testimony Limiting Expert Testimony by Restrictions of Function, Reliability, and Form, 71 OR. L. Rev. 349, 361; and see: Vidmar, N.J.  & Schuller, R.A. (1989).  Juries and Expert Evidence: Social Framework Testimony, LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS., Autumn 1989, at 133, 166 (footnote omitted); also see e.g., Commonwealth v. Garcia, 588 A.2d 951, 955 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991), appeal denied, 604 A.2d 248 (Pa. 1992) Instructing that “Jurors are human and may be unduly impressed by an expert, his credentials, and ultimately his opinion, ‘even though, upon reflection, they would realize that in the particular field under discussion they are as much at home as the expert.’”.

[11].     Courts rely on Rule 403 to exclude opinions which are couched in terms that may be clearly prejudicial even though the gist of the opinion is admissible. A judge might, for instance, find the terms “voiceprint” or “DNA print” objectionable as suggesting an analogy to fingerprints that might cause a juror to overvalue the worth of the expert’s opinion.  In cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse, experts are fond of describing a child’s story as a “disclosure” so as to lend credibility to the expert’s sense that abuse really happened.

[12].     Courts have relied on Rule 403 when they fear that statements of statistical probability might be over persuasive and thus prejudice the jury. In United States v. Massey, 594 F.2d 676, 680 (8th Cir. 1979) for example, the court reversed on the basis of plain error. The prosecution’s expert witness who identified a hair sample as identical to one taken from the defendant testified to some statistical probabilities as to which no foundation had been established.

[13].     See Sharon Begley, The Meaning of Junk Science, NEWSWEEK, Mar. 22, 1993, at 64. See, also: Faigman,D. L. (1989).  To Have and Have Not: Assessing theValue of Social Science to the Law as Science and Policy, 38 Emory L.J. 1005.

[14].     One of the real problems with waiting until trial is illustrated in these holdings:

United States v. L.E. Cooke Co., 991 F.2d 336, 342 (6th Cir. 1993) The reviewing court ruled that the exclusion of testimony due to the danger of misleading the jury was not a ground for reversal because the opposing party had an opportunity to refute testimony during cross-examination; and see: Singer Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 579 F.2d 433, 443 (8th Cir. 1978) Where the trial court refused to strike expert testimony as unsupported speculation on the ground that it was for the jury to value the worth of the opinion with the assistance of vigorous cross-examination.

[15].     Underlying facts or data need not be admissible. See, i.e.:

3d Circuit – See, e.g., United States v. Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d 587, 590 (3rd  Cir. 1989) Expert testimony decoding intercepted telephone conversations, some in foreign language, was admissible even though some of expert’s conclusions drawn from material not in evidence.

5th Circuit –  See, e.g., Marcel v. Placid Oil Co., 11 F.3d 563, 567-568 (5th Cir. 1994) Experts may rely on hearsay if data is reliable and otherwise qualifies under Fed. R. Evid. 703.

7th Circuit – See, e.g., Finchum v. Ford Motor Co., 57 F.3d 526, 531-532 (7th  Cir. 1995) A Plaintiff’s expert was entitled to rely on published article about occupant safety during rear impact collision although article itself was inadmissible hearsay; and  Baumholser v. Amax Coal Co., 630 F.2d 550, 553 (7th  Cir. 1980) Where an expert was entitled to rely on hearsay evidence to support his opinion.  But the evidence itself should not have been admitted; see also United States v. Madoch, 935 F. Supp. 965, 972-974 (N.D. 111. 1996) Where a psychiatrist evaluating the defendant on court order was entitled to rely on defendant’s self-report of physical and emotional abuse in reaching her diagnosis although the statements were hearsay.  The court went on to rule that the  statements the psychiatrist “reasonably relied upon in reaching [ her] opinion may be disclosed to the jury to help the jury understand and evaluate” its basis because Seventh Circuit admits all statements made for purpose of medical diagnosis.  To either treating or nontreating physicians, to same extent whether applying Fed. R. Evid. 703 or Fed. R. Evid. 803(4).

8th Circuit – See. e.g., South Cent. Petroleum, Inc. v. Long Bros. Oil Co.,        974 F.2d 1015, 1018-1019 (8th Cir. 1992) The district court properly allowed an expert to rely on information obtained from a commercial production service that received its information from the state, which in turn received its information from a well operator, even though the underlying data was inadmissible.

9th Circuit – See, e.g., Doe v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 971 F.2d 375, 385-386 (9th Cir.1992) The district court abused its discretion in excluding affidavits of plaintiffs’ three experts on ground that their opinions were not based on “any facts within affiant’s personal knowledge.”

10th Circuit – See, e.g., United States v. Davis, 40 F.3d 1069. 1075 (10th  Cir. 1994).cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1088 (1995) It was proper for an expert to rely on technicians and their notes.

11th Circuit – See, e.g., First Nat’l Bank of Luisvilie v. Lustig,. 96 F.3d 1554, 1576 (11th Cir. 1996) Experts may rely on hearsay evidence in forming their opinions; United States v. Chandler, 950 F. Supp. 1545, 1565-1566 (N.D. Ala. 1996) An expert in drug trade was entitled to form and testify to opinions based on inadmissible facts, including hearsay.

[16].     Here are some recent examples of hearsay as the basis for testimony:

2d Circuit – See. e.g., New York State Ass’n for Retarded Children v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956. 961 (2nd Cir.). cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1150 (1983) An expert’s opinion based on out-of-court statements obtained for purpose of enabling expert to express opinion was admissible.

3d Circuit – See, e.g., United States v. Scarfo, 711 F. Supp. 1315, 1344-1345 (E.D. Pa. 1989). aff’d, 910 F.2d 1084 (3rd Cir. 1990) The trial court allowed the prosecution expert in racketeering trial, to express an opinion on cause and time of murder victim’s death.,where the expert relied on findings of medical examiner.

5th Circuit – See, e.g., Marcel v. Placid Oil Co., 11 F.3d 563, 567-568 (5th Cir. 1994) Experts generally may rely on hearsay, such as study, if data is reliable and qualifies under Fed. R. Evid. 703.

7th Circuit – See. e.g., United States v. Brown, 7 F.3d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1993) A witness properly based his opinion on types of evidence relied on by experts in narcotics, specifically, his examination of physical evidence and police reports.

8th Circuit – See. e.g., South Cent. Petroleum, Inc. v. LongBros. Oil Co., 974 F.2d 1015, 1018-1019 (8th Cir. 1992) An expert was permitted to rely on information obtained from commercial production service.

9th Circuit – See, e.g., Doe v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 971 F.2d 375, 385-386 (9th Cir. 1992) The trial court erred in excluding affidavits of plaintiffs’ three experts based on their knowledge of the medical literature.

10th Circuit – See. e.g., United States v. Davis, 40 F.3d 1069. 1075 (10th  Cir. 1994) It was proper for expert to rely on technicians and their notes.

[17].     See, i.e.: In re Japanese Elec. Prod. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 285 (3rd  Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) Full disclosure of the hearsay source underlying an expert opinion creates a foundation for an analysis of its trustworthiness and reliability.