Tag: Law

Evidentiary Rules and Motion Practice

Posted on by Shawn Wygant

At PsychLaw.net we know it is a matter of common knowledge that scientific expert testimony is offered in a very high percentage of American trials.[1]  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).  Muller was a landmark case dealing with social welfare legislation designed to limit the work day of women. These women typically labored in a factory or laundry up to ten hours. In this case, attorney Louis Brandeis accumulated a substantial body of medical and social science research demonstrating the debilitating effect on women and girls of working long hours.  Brandeis presented this material to the United States Supreme Court in a brief defending Oregon’s limits on the number of hours females could be employed.  As the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the legislation, it discussed Brandeis’ social science material.  The Court declared that although they “may not be, technically speaking, ‘authorities’, the studies would nonetheless receive judicial cognizance.”  Since that time, motions and briefs designed to bring the weight of social science research to the attention of the court have been termed “Brandeis briefs”.

In  Muller v Oregon the Court made it clear that it wanted good quality scientific data bearing directly on the issues.  Today, when any court is asked to admit expert testimony as valid science under Daubert, opposing parties may attack the proof as scientifically invalid or questionable by offering counter proofs.[2]  Because of the Federal Rules’ emphasis on liberalizing expert testimony, and the specific requirements of Daubert and Kumho, it is the job of the advocate to lay out the scientific issues for the court’s consideration.  At PsychLaw.net we feel this is best accomplished in motion practice.

Nevertheless there’s a problem.  As Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in Daubert:

“I defer to no one in my confidence in federal judges, but I am at a loss to know what is meant when it is said that the scientific status of a theory depends on its ‘falsifiability,’ and I suspect some of them will be, too.” Daubert 509 U S 579, 113 S Ct at 2800; 125 L Ed 2d at 485.

The Chief Justice continued by explaining that trial court judges are expected to become “amateur scientists,”[3] and warned that science is an  “unusual subject matter” for the judiciary.  He advocated that the courts should “proceed with great caution . . . because our reach can so easily exceed our grasp”.[4] In any trial where scientific evidence is needed, the “great caution” that the Chief Justice recommends creates a duty and an opportunity for both the advocate of scientific testimony and the would be cross examiner.  The duties and responsibilities created by Daubert and Kumho, to keep “junk science” out, and admit only scientifically reliable and valid expert testimony, are described previously in this chapter.  The opportunity for the attorney advocating the evidence and the would-be cross examiner, is motion practice.

Rules 26(b)(4) and 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts.  At PsychLaw.net we feel that discovery practice provides the cross examiner with an opportunity to understand the qualifications, grounding and foundational basis of proffered expert testimony.  Similarly, Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) provides that a summary of proposed expert testimony may be obtained prior to trial and the “summary must describe the witnesses’ opinions, the bases and the reasons therefor, and the witnesses’ qualifications.” And Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(Z)(B) requires the report to contain:

“A complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor; the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.”

Today, the cross examiner is faced with a new evidentiary world, where the intent of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is toward “liberal admission” of proposed expert testimony.[5]  These rule governed reports, and the additional material gained through discovery, must be used by the would-be cross examiner in motion practice. Doing so avoids the unhappy possibility of a trier of fact hearing some damaging “junk science” that forces the cross examiner to play catch up.  For these reasons, we at PsychLaw.net are providing numerous sample motions each accompanied by a memorandum of law.  We have designed  these sample motions and memoranda to demonstrate an integration of the material in the text.  They will also aid the cross examiner in directing the gatekeepers attention to important issues of scientific reliability and validity before a jury is seated.

As unprepared for an analysis of scientific issues as  gatekeepers too often are, they are given broad discretion in evidentiary rulings[6].  As a result, it is particularly important to rely heavily upon pre-trial motion practice and the hearings which should be granted under Daubert and Kumho.  The would-be cross examiner of suspected “junk science” must bear in mind that trial judges are rarely overruled in these decisions.[7]    For these reasons, it is essential to ask for a Daubert hearing.

 

[1].       See, i.e.: Gross, S. R. (1991).  Expert Evidence, Wis. L. Rev. 1113, 1118-19 Presenting the findings of a survey of 529 civil jury trials conducted in California Superior Courts in 1985 and 1986.

[2].       For example, see: U.S. v. Velasquez, 64 F.3d 844, 849-852, 42 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (LCP) 1175 (3d Cir. 1995) [A drug trial wherein the Third Circuit concluded that it was error to exclude defense evidence on lack of standards in field of handwriting analysis simply because trial court determined that the proof was sufficiently reliable to be admitted under FRE 702.  The Third Circuit appellate panel concluded that expert testimony on handwriting analysis is clearly admissible and decided to apply Daubert in order to be cautious.  As this was a pre Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v Carmichael, ___ U. S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 1167; 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) case.  Under the Daubert standard, the defense counter proof should have been admitted since “the same considerations that inform the court’s legal decision to admit evidence under Rule 702 may also influence the factfinder’s determination as to what weight such evidence … should receive”.

[3].       Id. 113 S Ct. 2786, at 2800.

[4].       Id. 113 S Ct. 2786, at 2797.

[5].       See, i.e.:Habecker v Cooperloy Corp, 893 F2d 49,  29 Fed Rules Evid. Serv 452 (1990) It is the intent of FRE 702 to endorse the  “liberal admission” of expert testimony, and “liberal qualification” of experts.

[6].       Trial judge has broad discretion. United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126, 134 (1st Cir. 1995) Trial court’s decision entitled to great deference).

1st Circuit             United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126, 134 (1st Cir. 1995) Trial court’s decision entitled to great deference.

2d Circuit             See, e.g., United States v. Aminy, 15 F.3d 258, 261 (2d  Cir. 1994) In an expert witness / testimony review, the appellate court ruled that it was not error to admit expert evidence that foil wrapping of heroin was similar to that used by known drug dealers.

4th Circuit            See, e.g., Maryland Cas. Co. v. Therm-O-Disc, Inc., 137 F.3d 780, 783 (4th Cir. 1998) Daubert  requires only that trial judge make a “preliminary assessment” of whether proffered expert testimony is both reliable and helpful; plaintiffs do not have to prove that assessments of their experts are correct, they only have to  demonstrate that their opinions are reliable.

5th Circuit            Snap-Drape, Inc. v. Commissioner, 98 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cit. 1997). cert. denied, – U.S. -, 118 S. Ct. 77 (1997) “The decision whether to admit expert testimony is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court and is reversible on review only for abuse of discretion.”

6th Circuit            See, e.g., United States v. August, 745 F.2d 400, 407 (6th Cir. 1984) It was not an abuse of discretion to allow a statistician to testify in a case alleging manipulation of blind draw system, that the system assigned cases to judges in intended random fashion.

7th Circuit            See, e.g., United States v. Stevenson, 6 F.3d 1262, 1266 (7th  Cir. 1993) It was not error to allow a drug enforcement agent to testify as an expert on distribution amounts in narcotics case.

8th Circuit            See Johnson Group, Inc. v. Beecham, Inc., 952 F.2d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir. 1991) It was not an abuse of discretion to allow expert testimony despite the possibility that the expert’s testimony included legal conclusions.

10th Circuit          See, e.g., State Office Sys. v. Olivetti Corp., 762 F.2d 843, 845-846 (10th Cir. 1985) It was not an abuse of discretion to allow the testimony of a company president on financial records given the witness’s knowledge and experience.

11th Circuit          See, e.g.,United States v. Burchfield, 719 F.2d  356, 357-358 (11th Cir.1983) It was not an abuse of discretion to permit expert testimony on commonly used counterfeit-bill-passing techniques.

D.C. Circuit United States v. Gatling, 96 F.3d 1511, 1523 (D.C. Cir. 1996) The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to admit or exclude expert testimony.

[7].       For some recent examples of cases wherein a request has been to overrule an admissibility decision on scientific evidence, see, i.e.:

1st Circuit             See, e.g., United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1183 (1st Cir. 1993) cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1223 (1994) Affirming trial court, both in its denial of motion in limine to exclude expert testimony and in its subsequent decision to strike testimony when cross-examination revealed it to have been based on inadequate foundation.

2d Circuit             See, e.g., Andrews v. Metro North Commuter R.R. Co., 882 F.2d 705,707-708 (2d Cir. 1989) A forensic engineer’s testimony was improper when matters were not “beyond the jury’s ken”.

3d Circuit             See, e.g., Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. v. Monsanto Co., 916 F.2d 819, 855-856 (3d Cir. 1990). cert. denied, 499 U.S. 961 (1991) (Paoli) The trial court’s insistence on certain credentials to qualify witness was abuse of discretion.

4th Circuit            See. e.g., Scott v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 789 F.2d 10512, 1055-1056 (4th Cir. 1986) An expert’s statistical evidence should have been excluded as unhelpful because it merely repeated common knowledge.

5th Circuit            See, e.g., In re Air Crash Disaster at New Orleans, La., 795 F.2d 1230,1233-1235 (5th Cir. 1986) It was an abuse of discretion to admit testimony where expert’s assumptions had no reasonable basis.

6th Circuit            See, e.g., CMI-Trading, Inc. v. Quantum Air. Inc., 98 F.3d 997, 990 (6th Cir. 1996) The district court “is accorded wide discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence challenged as irrelevant”.

Foundational Questions Regarding Peer-reviewed Journals

Posted on by Shawn Wygant

This blog relies extensively on the data and articles found in the peer-reviewed literature for cross-examining mental health professionals.  Consequently, at PsychLaw.net we feel it will be necessary for cross-examining attorneys to lay a foundation regarding the significance of peer-reviewed journals.  We recommend the following questions for foundational purposes.

  1. Dr. X, you would agree that the practice of your profession can advance no further than the availability of the basic research to support it — Correct?
  2. Just as the practice of medicine depends on basic research in the life sciences such as Biology and Chemistry, the practice of your profession depends on basic research in the behavioral sciences such as Psychology and Sociology — Correct?
  3. And practicing professionals such as yourself are ethically obligated to maintain a working familiarity with the emerging research in your field — Correct?
  4. [For psychologists] – Ethical standard 1.05 of the 1992 ethical code for psychologists – “Maintaining Expertise”[1] – states:

– [read] –

“Psychologists who engage in assessment, therapy, teaching, research, organizational consulting, or other professional activities maintain a reasonable level of awareness of current scientific and professional information in their fields of activity, and undertake ongoing efforts to maintain competence  in the skills they use.”

Now my question: You are obligated to comply with this provision– Correct?

  1. [For psychiatrists] – Section Five of the AMA Principles of Medical Ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry, state:

– [ read ] –

“A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.”

Now my question: You are obligated to comply with this provision– Correct?

AND

– [read] –

Provision One of Section Five: “Psychiatrists are responsible for their own continuing education and should be mindful of the fact that theirs must be a lifetime of learning.”

Now my question: You are obligated to comply with this provision– Correct?

  1. [For social workers] – Ethical standards 4.01 (b) and 4.01 (c) of the 1997 ethical code for social workers – “Competence”[2] – state:

– [read] –

4.01 (b) – “Social workers should strive to become and remain proficient in professional practice and the performance of professional functions.  Social workers should critically examine and keep current with emerging knowledge relevant to social work.  Social workers should routinely review the professional literature and participate in continuing education relevant to social work practice and social work ethics.”

Now my question: You are obligated to comply with this provision– Correct?

AND

– [read] –

4.01 (c) – “Social workers should base practice on recognized knowledge, including empirically based knowledge, relevant to social work and social work ethics.”

Now my question: You are obligated to comply with this provision– Correct?

  1. [For marriage and family therapists] – Ethical standard 3.4 of the 1998 ethical code for marriage and family therapists –

“Professional Competence and Integrity”[3] – states:

– [read] –

“Marriage and family therapists remain abreast of new developments in family therapy knowledge and practice through educational activities.”

Now my question: You are obligated to comply with this provision– Correct?

  1. Familiarity with peer reviewed journals can assist a professional in maintaining a reasonable level of awareness of current scientific and professional information — Correct?
  2. A peer-reviewed journal relies on a board of editors to review articles submitted to it for publication — Correct?
  3. And articles submitted to a peer-reviewed journal are reviewed independently by at least three different editors — Correct?
  4. And typically, editors reviewing the submitted article do not know who wrote it — Correct?
  5. After reviewing the submitted article, each editor makes recommendations such as: publish as is — Correct?
  6. Or publish with minor revisions — Correct?
  7. Or publish with major revisions — Correct?
  8. Or not currently suitable for publication — Correct?
  9. And sometimes, resubmit with major changes and reorganization — Correct?
  10. And sometimes editors conclude this article is not – and will not be – suitable for publication — Correct?
  11. Peer-review, therefore, amounts to a valuable source of quality control regarding what is published in scientific journals — Correct?
  12. The peer-review process encourages the publication of articles that make a significant contribution to your field — Correct?
  13. And the peer-review process discourages the publication of articles amounting to “junk science” — Correct?
  14. And authors of controversial articles, published in peer-reviewed journals, are ethically obligated to cite other articles taking a contrary position — Correct?
  15. In other words, peer-reviewed articles are obligated to present a fair and complete review of the existing literature — Correct?
  16. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals can therefore be considered generally recognized and accepted by your field — Correct?
  17. And sometimes authors whose work appears in the peer reviewed journals, write chapters or books on the same subject — Correct?
  18. And when these subjects, by these authors find their way into chapters and books, they can therefore be considered generally accepted by your field — Correct?

Because they are not as familiar with peer-reviewed journals as they should be, mental health professionals may attempt to diminish their importance. At ___ we feel you should consider, for example, the following exchange between a cross-examining attorney and a psychologist.

Attny:         Would you agree with the idea that your profession can advance no further than the availability of basic research to support it?

Psych:         I believe that my profession advances on the basis of basic research, but also advances on the shared community experience of skilled clinicians that come together to educate each other and to share their experiences and any relevant clinical information.

Claims such as these should be cross-examined in the following manner.

  1. These “skilled clinicians who come together to educate each other” typically know each other — Correct?
  2. And unlike the peer-review process of a journal, any criticisms expressed by these skilled clinicians – who come together to educate each other – are expressed on a face-to-face basis — Correct?
  3. And considerations of future professional relationships could make it more difficult for these “skilled clinicians” to respond candidly and forthrightly to each other — Correct?
  4. In other words, these “skilled clinicians” – coming together to educate each other and to share their experiences – may merely amount to you and your buddies talking about interesting cases over beer and pizza — Correct?
  5. And there are substantial differences between formal peer-review, and you and your buddies discussing interesting cases over beer and pizza — Correct?

At PsychLaw.net we know that some professionals may also attempt to avoid acknowledging that peer-reviewed articles can be considered generally recognized and accepted by their field.  Consider the following exchange, for example; and most importantly, note how the cross-examining attorney persisted in obtaining the acknowledgment he sought.

Attny:         Do you agree that peer-reviewed articles can be considered generally recognized and accepted in the field once they go through that process? [referring to the peer-review process].

Psych:         Recognized and accepted how?

Attny:         As a reliable authority by practitioners or psychologists?

Psych:         Recognized and accepted as good enough to be published in a journal.

Attny:         To be relied on by professionals?

Psych:         Not necessarily.

Attny:         What I am getting at is if you see something that has been peer-reviewed, A – is it more likely acceptable material to the mainstream of psychologists, or B – is it more likely radical thesis type material on the fringe; which is a more plausible answer to that?

Psych:         A is a more plausible answer to that.

 

Mental health professionals typically protest cross-examinations that challenge their too often ill-informed opinions.  While protesting, they may offer anecdotal evidence or idiosyncratic experiences attempting to defend themselves.  More often than not, these attempts are less than responsive to the questions directed at them.  In particular, mental health professionals often attempt to deny, minimize, or rationalize the findings reported in peer-reviewed journals.  At PsychLaw.net we feel their attempts in this regard warrant the following sequence of questions to maintain control of the cross examination:

  1. You understand that I am not interested in your unsubstantiated opinions — Correct?
  2. Consistent with your ethical obligation to maintain familiarity with developments in your field, I want to know what peer-reviewed articles support your opinions — Correct?
  3. And you do understand the difference between unsubstantiated opinion and peer-reviewed articles — Correct?

By now, you have noticed how most of our cross-examination questions end with the direct phrase, “Correct?”  We at PsychLaw.net have developed the questions in this manner to assist attorneys in maintaining control of the cross-examination procedure.  If given the opportunity, many mental health professionals will suggest why they regard various cross-examination questions as inappropriate.  Other mental health professionals may protest an approach that limits their answers.  Consider, for example, how a psychologist objected to this type of cross-examination:

Psych:         “You’re asking me about something that you have read and that I’m getting from you which is your, you know, synopsis of it.  I haven’t read it, and you’re asking me ‘Correct, correct.’ All I can say is this is what you’re telling me but I cannot tell you specifically anything about the article because I myself haven’t read it.”

Professionals who express these kinds of protests can be questioned in the following manner:

  1. You previously acknowledged the significance of peer-reviewed journals — Correct?
  2. Do you understand that when I refer to peer-reviewed articles, I will ask you to assume – consistent with a peer-reviewed article – that something is true. Do you understand that kind of question?
  3. In other words, do you understand that when I refer to peer-reviewed articles in your field, I am asking you to hypothetically assume that something is true?
  4. And when I end my questions by asking “Correct,” do you understand that I am trying to focus you on the issue on at hand?
  5. You prefer to respond to my questions in a focused, relevant manner as opposed to an unfocused, irrelevant manner — Correct?

 Overview

Unlike other critics of mental health professionals, we at PsychLaw.net contend that these professionals can assist the legal process. When mental health professionals express opinions well supported by relevant data, they can assist a trier of fact to better understand issues in dispute.  Expert testimony premised on relevant research deserves respect from the legal system.   Expert testimony premised on intuitive hunches and ill-conceived theories, however, deserves well prepared cross examination to effectively discredit it.

 

[1].       American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.  American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.

[2].       National Association of Social Workers (15 August 1996). Code of ethics: Adopted by the NASW Delegate Assembly August 15, 1996, Effective January 1, 1997.  Author: Washington, D.C.

[3].       American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (August/September 1998).  AAMFT Code of Ethics, effective July 1, 1998. , p. 10-11.