Defendant in Motor Vehicle Accident Files Motion In Limine to Exclude BAC Evidence – Nice Try.

18 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Evidence, Expert Witness Report, Expert Witnesses, Forensic Evidence, Litigation, Motion in Limine, Motions in Limine, Motor Vehicle

≈ Comments Off on Defendant in Motor Vehicle Accident Files Motion In Limine to Exclude BAC Evidence – Nice Try.

Tags

Autopsy Report, BAC Evidence, Daniel E. Cummins, Motion in Limine, Motor Vehicle Accident, TortTalk Blog

Admissibility of BAC Evidence Requires Proof of Intoxication, by Daniel E. Cummins, TortTalk Blog

http://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/admissibility-of-bac-evidence-requires.html

(Please contact Daniel Cummins at dancummins@comcast.net if you wish to review a copy of this opinion.)

In his recent February 9, 2015 Opinion in the case of Ritter v. Van Campen Motors, Inc., No. 12-00,379 (C.P. Lycoming Co. Feb. 9, 2015 Anderson, J.), Judge Dudley M. Anderson addressed Motions in Limine pertaining to DUI evidence filed by a Defendant in a motor vehicle accident case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a motor vehicle accident during which each party claimed that the other driver crossed the centerline resulting in the fatal accident. Accident reconstruction experts offered by each party came to opposite conclusions.

The Defendant filed a Motion In Limine to preclude evidence that the Defendant driver had a BAC of .257 at the time of the accident as confirmed by an autopsy report, testimony that the Defendant had been drinking prior to driving that day, and evidence that there was beer in the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the accident. The Defendant contended that the BAC evidence was inadmissible absent proof of intoxication. . . .

Continue reading →

A Legal Analysis of Shaken Baby Syndrome.

04 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Case Law, Evidence, Expert Witnesses, Health Law, Law Journals, Law Reviews, References, Research, Secondary Resources

≈ Comments Off on A Legal Analysis of Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Tags

Frye-Daubert, Ken Strutin, LLRX.com, Medical Evidence, Shaken Baby Syndrome

Shaken Baby Syndrome: A Differential Diagnosis of Justice, by Ken Strutin, LLRX.com

http://www.llrx.com/features/shakenbabysyndrome.htm

When King Solomon resolved history’s best-known custody dispute, he implicitly divined that the death of the absent child was due to accidental infanticide, not intentional homicide.¹ And his method was an early testament to truth finding. Today, the investigation of infantile death is too often accompanied by hurried accusations and false confessions.² And the search for truth is left to lawyers and experts who have become as adversarial as the testificants in Solomon’s court. The concept of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS)³ has become a battleground where medical evidence and legal presumptions clash, testing the limits of judicial wisdom.⁴

The investigation and prosecution of SBS cases ⁵ has revealed an historical and ongoing tension among medical experts ⁶ and legal practitioners and scholars.⁷ From the Supreme Court on down, judges in these cases have had to struggle with complex emotions, societal impulses, conflicting witness and expert testimonies, as well as ineffectiveness of defense counsel, need for appointed experts, admissibility under Frye-Daubert, and assessment of newly discovered evidence.⁸ Thus, legal investigation into the reasons behind infant deaths has turned into a medical “who done it” with the suspects ranging from accident and natural causes to the criminal conduct of parents and caretakers.⁹

This is a collection of recent and select court decisions, law reviews and news articles that explore the ongoing scientific and legal arguments about the definition and exclusivity of shaken baby syndrome evidence. . . .

Continue reading →

Craig Ball On Being A Digital Forensic Witness.

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Affidavits, Cross-Examination, Depositions, Direct Examination, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Exhibits, Expert Witness Report, Expert Witnesses, Experts, Forensic Expert Witness, Hearsay, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball On Being A Digital Forensic Witness.

Tags

Affidavits, Ball In Your Court Blog, Craig Ball, Depositions, E-Discovery, Evidence, Expert Witness Report, Forensic Expert Witness, Trial Tips & Techniques

Becoming a Better Digital Forensics Witness, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kgm8epj

I love to testify—in court, at deposition, in declarations and affidavits—and I even like writing reports about my findings in forensic exams.

I love the challenge—the chance to mix it up with skilled interrogators, defend my opinions and help the decision makers hear what the electronic evidence tells us. There is a compelling human drama being played out in those bits and bytes, and computer forensic examiners are the fortunate few who get to tell the story. It’s our privilege to help the finders of fact understand the digital evidence.[1]

This post is written for computer forensic examiners and outlines ways to become a more effective witness and common pitfalls you can avoid. But the advice offered applies as well to almost anyone who takes the stand. . . .

. . .

Expert Witness Lesson – Don’t Do This.

24 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Child Abuse, Expert Witnesses, Family Law, Judges

≈ Comments Off on Expert Witness Lesson – Don’t Do This.

Tags

Attorney Fees, Dr. V. Kavirajan, Dylan Farrow, Expert Witnesses, Family Law, New York Times, Rita Handrich, The Jury Room Blog, Woody Allen

What Expert Witnesses Should Not Do (Dylan, Woody & the Judge), posted by Rita Handrich, The Jury Room Blog

http://keenetrial.com/blog/2014/02/24/what-expert-witnesses-should-not-do-dylan-woody-the-judge/

The sad and painful tale of Dylan Farrow has emerged again following her letter to the NYT after Woody Allen received the Golden Globes Lifetime Achievement Award. Woody Allen responded to Ms. Farrow’s open letter and she responded to his response. The internet has been on fire with reactions, pro-Farrow, pro-Allen, and everything in between. You can find them with a simple internet search and we won’t link to them here.

This post isn’t really about the letter, the responses, or the internet reaction to them. Instead, it’s about the original judge in the dispute and a cautionary tale for the attorneys who hire expert witnesses everywhere. I first saw the judge’s written opinion when it was sent around on a mailing list. It reads like a ‘don’t do this’ text for the would-be forensic expert witness. There are so many legitimate reasons this case would not have succeeded at trial–regardless of Mr. Allen’s actual culpability. . . .

Experts, Admissibility, and Rule 705

22 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Court Rules, Evidence, Expert Witnesses, Forensic Evidence, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Experts, Admissibility, and Rule 705

Tags

Admissibility, Evidence, Expert Opinion, Expert Witness, Rule 705, Voir Dire

Who Made You The Expert?: Rule 705 & The Admissibility of Underlying Facts or Data, by Evidence ProfBlogger, EvidenceProfBlog
http://bit.ly/1a085YM

Litigation Tips and Techniques

15 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Expert Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on Litigation Tips and Techniques

Tags

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Expert Witnesses, Torts

Court Rules Defendant May Cross-Examine on Fact That Plaintiff’s Attorney Referred Plaintiff to Doctor, posted by Daniel E. Cummins, TortTalk (originally published Pennsylvania Law Weekly “Digest of Recent Opinions – October 1, 2013) http://bit.ly/171qp7n