Re: Eminence vs. Evidence
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Tue Feb 19 12:27:13 2008
Daubert doesn't quite work in the Peoples Republic of the Bronx. And
no, I don't have faith in the system nor in six folk who couldn't manage
to get out of jury duty. It's a wasteful, archaic system which only
suits the Lawyers who run the game. As you've so correctly quote
Holmes, "It's not a court of Justice..."
Art
At Tue, 19 Feb 2008, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 2/19/08 7:54:12 AM, evsono@pipeline.com writes:
>
>> Or if ACOG and state medical societies had called out the so-called
>> "Experts."
>>
>Have faith in the System, Grasshopper. Have faith in the System!
>
>While the ACOG and the societies were sitting on their collective hands (or
>whatever they were doing with their hands), our COURTS have effectively come up
>with a solution.
>
>In the 1993 case, Daubert v. Merrill Dow (which was a suit over Bendectin®,
>remember that?), the U.S. Supreme Court decided UNANIMOUSLY that the trial
>court, under the Federal Rules of Evidence (specifically Rule 702), had to
>evaluate "expert testimony" to determine it's scientific validity and also its
>relevance to the matter at hand.
>
>Rule 702 specifies that "if scientific, technical, or other specialized
>knwledge will assist the trier of fact [the court and/or the jury] to understand
>the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness [that's us] qualified as
>an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify
>thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."
>
>The Court opined that the "adjective 'scientific' implies a grounding in the
>methods and procedures of science. Similarly, the word 'knowledge' connotes
>more than a subjective belief or unsupported speculation."
>
>So the expert witness, under Daubert and the Federal Rules, has to provide
>for the court his bona fides, in terms of what he says he knows, what the
>scientific basis of the knowledge is, where it can be found, etc. (Enough
>information so the other party can 'cross examine' the evidence and make sure it's
>fairly reliable.)
>
>You CAN'T just sit up there and say "I'm Professor Lisse from out of town and
>I KNOW the answer because I've been flying these broomsticks for years! So
>what I say is the unimpeachable truth!" You have to provide the literature on
>the broomstick, the manual, and your own training and practice specifics, yada,
>yada, yada. There must be some reliable basis for your opinion and it has to
>be solid (not nebulous). Also, your training/experience has to be relevant to
>the case at hand -- you can't testify on flying broomstick cases if you've only
>been flying Cessnas.
>
>It's a whole new ballgame, boys and girls (at least since 1993). And the
>System did it -- not ACOG.
>
>May the System be with you!
>
>Joe P.
>
>FYI, here's Rule 702 in its entirety. It is augmented by the Rules of Civil
>Procedure and other Rules.
>
>RUle 702. Testimony by Experts
>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, sill, experience, training, or
>education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if
>(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
>(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
>(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliabily to the facts
>of the case.
>
--
art fougner, md
"May The Wings of Liberty Never Lose a Feather." - Jack Burton
|
|
