DOCSLIB.ORG

Expert Witnesses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert This course is provided free of charge and is designed to give a comprehensive discussion of recommended practices for the forensic expert to follow when preparing for and testifying in court. Find this course live, online at: https://law101.training.nij.gov Updated: September 8, 2011 DNA I N I T I A T I V E www.DNA.gov About this Course This PDF file has been created from the free, self-paced online course “Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert.” To take this course online, visit https://law101.training. nij.gov. If you already are registered for any course on DNA.gov, you may logon directly at http://law101.dna.gov. Questions? If you have any questions about this file or any of the courses or content on DNA.gov, visit us online at http://www.dna.gov/more/contactus/. Links in this File Most courses from DNA.Gov contain animations, videos, downloadable documents and/ or links to other userful Web sites. If you are using a printed, paper version of this course, you will not have access to those features. If you are viewing the course as a PDF file online, you may be able to use these features if you are connected to the Internet. Animations, Audio and Video. Throughout this course, there may be links to animation, audio or video files. To listen to or view these files, you need to be connected to the Internet and have the requisite plug-in applications installed on your computer. Links to other Web Sites. To listen to or view any animation, audio or video files, you need to be connected to the Internet and have the requisite plug-in applications installed on your computer. Legal Policies and Disclaimers See Legal Policies and Disclaimers (http://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies.htm) for information on Links to Other Web Sites, Copyright Status and Citation and Disclaimer of Liability and Endorsement. Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert This course provides 13 modules and this introduction which is designed to give a comprehensive discussion of recommended practices for the forensic expert to follow when preparing for and testifying in court. Because laws may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, experts are advised to check with local attorney(s) and become familiar with the laws applicable in the court where they will testify. The thirteen modules include: 1. Sources of Scientific Evidence 2. Report Writing and Supporting Documentation 3. Importance of Case Preparation 4. Subpoenas vs. Promises to Appear 5. Affidavits 6. Being a Court-Appointed Expert 7. Discovery 8. General Testifying Tips 9. Depositions 10. Pretrial 11. Trial 12. Post-Trial, Pre-Sentencing 13. Ethics for Experts Disclaimer The opinions and points of view expressed in this training program represent a consensus of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. This project was developed by the National Forensic Science Technology Center under Award No. 2004-DN-BX-0079 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Introduction to Law 101 1/203 Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert Learning Objectives After completing the introductory module, the user should: • Know the role of an expert witness. • Know the difference between lay and expert opinions. • Be able to define technical terms and complex processes in everyday language. • Realize that standard operating procedures (SOPs) must be correctly applied in laboratories. • Comprehend that the expert must remain impartial in testing, report writing and testimony, regardless of the proffering party's identity. Terminology Most terms used in this document are common nomenclature, or legal terms of art, but some words may have multiple interpretations. For that reason, a glossary of definitions for those words, as they are used in this text, appears in the Appendix. Although experts must have specialized knowledge and experience in specific disciplines, they must explain these areas of expertise to many people less knowledgeable or experienced in these disciplines. Experts should be able to explain technical terms and complex processes clearly in plain, everyday language. Analytical reports, pretrial preparation with attorneys, testimony, trial exhibits and demonstrations should all be written in plain English and simple language. In addition, an expert's writing must be impartial — in fact, the expert should remain impartial in testing, report writing and testimony regardless of whether the expert works for one of the parties or the court. This document also outlines the role of the forensic expert, from completing evidence analyses, to testifying in court in support of those analyses. Content is divided into modules designed to be read from start to finish for a broad overview, as individual chapters on specific aspects of analyses and testimony, or as a primer or refresher on a particular topic. Rules of Evidence and Lay Witnesses Federal Rules of Evidence refer to the body of evidentiary rules, used in federal court and adopted in many state courts, which generally constitute a summary of the law of evidence in many jurisdictions. FRE 701 applies to opinion evidence given by a lay (non-expert) witness. Lay witnesses cannot give opinions based on scientific, technical or specialized knowledge. In order for a non-expert witness to give an opinion in court, it must relate to something about which the witness has personal knowledge (e.g., eyewitness evidence) or be based on something upon which any reasonable person could offer an opinion (e.g., the height of a suspect). Expert Witnesses By contrast, FRE 702 states that "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 — as qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, 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 reliably to the facts of the case." As indicated, however, the rule concerning expert witnesses may vary from state to state. 2/203 Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert Federal court jury instructions advise juries concerning expert witnesses as follows: "The rules of evidence ordinarily do not permit witnesses to testify as or conclusions. An exception to this rule exists as to opinions to those whom we call 'expert witnesses.' Witnesses who, by education and experience, have become expert in some art, science, profession, or calling, may state an opinion as to relevant and material matter, in which they profess to be expert, and may also state their reasons for the opinion. "You should consider each expert opinion received in evidence in this case, and give it such weight as you may think it deserves. If you should decide that the opinion of an expert witness is not based upon sufficient education and experience, or if you should conclude that the reasons given in support of the opinion are not sound, or that the opinion is outweighed by other evidence, you may disregard the opinion entirely." (Source: Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, 3rd ed., Vol.1 [West Publishing Company, 1977], § 15.22, p. 482.) Many state courts offer similar typical expert witness jury instructions that could read as follows: You have heard evidence in this case from witnesses who testified as experts. The law allows an expert to express opinions on subjects involving their special knowledge, training, skill, experience or research. You shall determine what weight, if any, should be given such testimony, as with any other witness. A witness who is qualified by the court as an expert in a particular field may assist the judge or jury in understanding a method or technology at issue, interpreting results of scientific tests, or offering opinions based upon the evidence in the case. Testifying experts are not required to conduct the tests on which they base their opinions. However, they must possess the required "scientific, technical or specialized knowledge" to be qualified by the court as an expert in their particular field in order to review relevant materials from the case and/or give relevant opinions. Experts who work for federal, state, local and private laboratories may have written standard operating procedures (SOPs), which outline all steps of each scientific analysis the laboratory performs. These should be followed whenever possible. In instances where a deviation from the SOP is necessary, a thorough explanation should be documented and immediately brought to the attorney's attention. Generally, a forensic expert's role begins by: • Receiving information and evidence in a case for testing. • Examining or evaluating a case. • Receiving an opposing expert's analytical report. • Anticipating and preparing for cross-examination. An Expert Witness Overview: How the Process Works A general understanding of the process may help alleviate some fears about the expert's role in the adversarial legal system. 3/203 Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert • Experts are allowed to render opinions about matters in legal proceedings because of their knowledge, training and experience. • Experts may be called on to assist in all phases of the investigation, preparation, discovery and trial. • The expert transmits specialized information and knowledge to the fact finder. The expert will likely be questioned. Anticipation of cross-examination can facilitate a confident response. • Experts should prepare for cross-examination and frame a strategy for answering vulnerable areas. • Forensic experts must prepare thoroughly to testify.
Recommended publications
  • Core Principles of the Legal Profession

    Core Principles of the Legal Profession

    CORE PRINCIPLES OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION Resolution ratified on Tuesday October 30, 2018, during the General Assembly in Porto Preamble The lawyer’s role is to counsel, conciliate, represent and defend. In a society founded on respect for the law and for justice, the lawyer advises the client on legal matters, examines the possibility and the appropriateness of finding amicable solutions or of choosing an alternative dispute resolution method, assists the client and represents the client in legal proceedings. The lawyer fulfils the lawyer’s engagement in the interest of the client while respecting the rights of the parties and the rules of the profession, and within the boundaries of the law. Over the years, each bar association has adopted its own rules of conduct, which take into account national or local traditions, procedures and laws. The lawyer should respect these rules, which, notwithstanding their details, are based on the same basic values set forth below. 1 - Independence of the lawyer and of the Bar In order to fulfil fully the lawyer’s role as the counsel and representative of the client, the lawyer must be independent and preserve his lawyer’s professional and intellectual independence with regard to the courts, public authorities, economic powers, professional colleagues and the client, as well as regarding the lawyer’s own interests. The lawyer’s independence is guaranteed by both the courts and the Bar, according to domestic or international rules. Except for instances where the law requires otherwise to ensure due process or to ensure the defense of persons of limited means, the client is free to choose the client’s lawyer and the lawyer is free to choose whether to accept a case.
  • 4.08 “Open Door” Evidence (1) a Party

    4.08 “Open Door” Evidence (1) a Party

    4.08 “Open Door” Evidence (1) A party may “open the door” to the introduction by an opposing party of evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible when in the presentation of argument, cross-examination of a witness, or other presentation of evidence the party has given an incomplete and misleading impression on an issue. (2) A trial court must exercise its discretion to decide whether a party has “opened the door” to otherwise inadmissible evidence. In so doing, the trial court should consider whether, and to what extent, the evidence or argument claimed to “open the door” is incomplete and misleading and what, if any, otherwise inadmissible evidence is reasonably necessary to explain, clarify, or otherwise correct an incomplete and misleading impression. (3) To assure the proper exercise of the court’s discretion and avoid the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence, the recommended practice is for a party to apply to the trial court for a ruling on whether the door has been opened before proceeding forward, and the court should so advise the parties before taking evidence. Note Subdivisions (1) and (2) recite the long-settled “open door” principle in New York, as primarily explained in People v Melendez (55 NY2d 445 [1982]); People v Rojas (97 NY2d 32, 34 [2001]); People v Massie (2 NY3d 179 [2004]); and People v Reid (19 NY3d 382 [2012]). Melendez dealt with the issue of whether the defense had opened the door to permit the prosecutor to explore an aspect of the investigation that would not otherwise have been admissible. The Court began by noting that, when an “opposing party ‘opens the door’ on cross-examination to matters not touched upon during the direct examination, a party has the right on redirect to explain, clarify and fully elicit [the] question only partially examined on cross-examination.” (Melendez at 451 1 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) Argument to the jury or other presentation of evidence also may open the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence.
  • National Domestic Violence Prosecution Best Practices Guide Is a Living Document Highlighting Current Best Practices in the Prosecution of Domestic Violence

    National Domestic Violence Prosecution Best Practices Guide Is a Living Document Highlighting Current Best Practices in the Prosecution of Domestic Violence

    The National Domestic Violence Prosecution Best Practices Guide is a living document highlighting current best practices in the prosecution of domestic violence. It was inspired by the Women Prosecutors Section of the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) and a National Symposium on the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases, hosted by the NDAA and Alliance for HOPE International in San Diego in October 2015. The two-day national symposium included 100 of our nation’s leading prosecutors re- envisioning the prosecution of domestic violence cases in the United States. Prosecutors and allied professionals are encouraged to continue developing this guide by contributing information on emerging best practices. NDAA recognizes that funding, local rules, or other state laws or local restrictions may prevent an office from adopting the various approaches suggested. This guide is not intended to replace practices and procedures already in operation, but to simply inform and recommend practices that are effective and consistent throughout the nation. For additional suggested edits to this document, contact [email protected], Chair, Domestic Violence Subcommittee, NDAA Women’s Section. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Victim Recantation, Minimization, and
  • Expert Witness Ethics

    Expert Witness Ethics

    EXPERT WITNESS ETHICS Joseph Sanders* The worst that can be said about an expert opinion is not that it is a lie— that criticism is often beside the point—but that it is unreasonable, that no competent expert in the field would hold it.1 INTRODUCTION Expert witness ethics is one of those topics about which there appears to be a fair degree of resigned acceptance of the status quo. In large measure this is because of a lack of agreed upon ethical standards and, therefore, a lack of consensus concerning what steps we should take to encourage more ethical behavior. Both of these are difficult issues, and I do not propose to offer noncontroversial solutions to either. Nevertheless, the topic is worthy of our attention. The costs of unethical expert witnessing are substantial. They include the costs associated with weeding out the most unethical witnesses and, equally important, the costs reflected in any reduced ability of fact-finders to come to correct conclusions. This essay is organized into three sections. In the first part, I discuss the nature of the expert’s ethical obligation and impediments to fulfilling that obligation. This part is informed by the central proposition that the primary purpose of a trial is to ascertain the truth.2 This purpose informs the central ethical obligation of experts, which is to provide adequate, unbiased justifications for their position. I argue that the “same intellectual rigor” test advanced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,3 although much criticized, is with some modification the most appropriate measure of this ethical standard.
  • The Competency Framework a Guide for IAEA Managers and Staff CONTENT

    The Competency Framework a Guide for IAEA Managers and Staff CONTENT

    @ The Competency Framework A guide for IAEA managers and staff CONTENT INTRODUCTION. .3 1. CORE VALUES . .8 2. CORE COMPETENCIES . 10 COMMUNICATION . 11 TEAMWORK . 12 PLANNING AND ORGANIZING . 13 ACHIEVING RESULTS . 14 3. FUNCTIONAL COMPETENCIES. 15 LEADING AND SUPERVISING . 16 ANALYTICAL THINKING . 17 KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND LEARNING . 18 JUDGEMENT/DECISION MAKING . 19 TECHNICAL/SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY . 20 CHANGE MANAGEMENT . 21 COMMITMENT TO CONTINUOUS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT . 22 PARTNERSHIP BUILDING . 23 CLIENT ORIENTATION . 24 PERSUASION AND INFLUENCING . 25 RESILIENCE . 26 1 INTRODUCTION What is a competency framework? What are the components of the framework? A competency framework is a model that broadly describes The Agency’s competency framework includes core values, performance excellence within an organization. Such a and core and functional competencies. The defi nitions of framework usually includes a number of competencies these components are as follows: that are applied to multiple occupational roles within the organization. Each competency defi nes, in generic Core values are principles that infl uence people’s actions terms, excellence in working behaviour; this defi nition and the choices they make. They are ethical standards that then establishes the benchmark against which staff are are based on the standards of conduct for the international assessed. A competency framework is a means by which civil service and are to be upheld by all staff. organizations communicate which behaviours are required, valued, recognized and rewarded with respect to specifi c Core competencies provide the foundation of the occupational roles. It ensures that staff, in general, have a framework, describing behaviours to be displayed by all staff common understanding of the organization’s values and members.
  • The Supreme Court and the New Equity

    The Supreme Court and the New Equity

    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 68 | Issue 4 Article 1 5-2015 The uprS eme Court and the New Equity Samuel L. Bray Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Samuel L. Bray, The uS preme Court and the New Equity, 68 Vanderbilt Law Review 997 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol68/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 68 MAY 2015 NUMBER 4 ARTICLES The Supreme Court and the New Equity Samuel L. Bray* The line between law and equity has largely faded away. Even in remedies, where the line persists, the conventional scholarly wisdom favors erasing it. Yet something surprisinghas happened. In a series of cases over the last decade and a half, the U.S. Supreme Court has acted directly contrary to this conventional wisdom. These cases range across many areas of substantive law-from commercial contracts and employee benefits to habeas and immigration, from patents and copyright to environmental law and national security. Throughout these disparate areas, the Court has consistently reinforced the line between legal and equitable remedies, and it has treated equitable remedies as having distinctive powers and limitations. This Article describes and begins to evaluate the Court's new equity cases.
  • Case 3:14-Cv-00092-JMS-MPB Document 444 Filed

    Case 3:14-Cv-00092-JMS-MPB Document 444 Filed

    Case 3:14-cv-00092-JMS-MPB Document 444 Filed 09/26/19 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION WILLIAM HURT, DEADRA HURT, and ANDREA ) HURT, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) 3:14-cv-00092-JMS-MPB vs. ) ) JEFF VANTLIN, JACK SPENCER, WILLIAM ) ARBAUGH, JASON PAGETT, MATTHEW WISE, ) and ZACHARY JONES, ) Defendants. ) ORDER Plaintiffs William Hurt, Deadra Hurt, and Andrea Hurt1 allege in this matter that they were wrongfully targeted, arrested, and prosecuted for the death of their uncle, Marcus Golike, whose body was found in the Ohio River in June 2012. After the Court ruled on Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Evansville Police Department Detectives Jeff Vantlin, Jack Spencer, William Arbaugh, and Jason Pagett (the “EPD Defendants”) and Kentucky State Police Detectives Matthew Wise and Zachary Jones (the “KSP Defendants”), the Defendants sought and the Seventh Circuit resolved an interlocutory appeal. Following remand, the Court considered briefing by the parties on the effect of the Court’s summary judgment rulings and the interlocutory appeal, and determined that the following claims remain for trial: (1) Wrongful Pretrial Detention: William vs. EPD Detectives Vantlin, Spencer, Arbaugh, and Pagett; Deadra vs. EPD Detectives Vantlin and Spencer; (2) False Arrest: William, Deadra, and Andrea vs. EPD Detective Vantlin and KSP Detectives Wise and Jones; (3) Use of an Involuntary Confession in a Criminal Proceeding: William and Deadra vs. EPD Detective Vantlin and KSP Detectives Wise and Jones; (4) Failure 1 For simplicity, the Court will refer individually to Plaintiffs by their first names only in the remainder of this Order.
  • A New Regime for Expert Witnesses

    A New Regime for Expert Witnesses

    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 26 Number 3 Summer 1992 pp.757-764 Summer 1992 A New Regime for Expert Witnesses Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, A New Regime for Expert Witnesses, 26 Val. U. L. Rev. 757 (1992). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol26/iss3/5 This Monsanto Lecture is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Epstein: A New Regime for Expert Witnesses A NEW REGIME FOR EXPERT WITNESSES RICHARD A. EPSTEIN I. TORT REFORM OR PROCEDURAL REFORM Most proposals for tort reform are efforts to mount a frontal assault against a system that many believe to be deeply at odds with the best interests of our legal social system. In the many years in which I have dealt with mass torts, both as a scholar and as a consultant, I have become convinced that the protracted struggles in litigation are a pointless social exercise that fail in all of their fundamental objectives. The sprawling nature of the litigation consumes enormous social resources, and the kinds of factual inquiries that are raised in the cases require lawyers to develop extensive expertise in a wide range of scientific, economic, and historical issues. In 1968 when I started to teach, the paradigmatic tort was still the automobile collision at the intersection of Fourth and Main, and serious scholars were asking whether the tort system had any future at all, given that automobile no-fault insurance was likely to overtake automobile liability, just as employer liability gave way to worker's compensation laws.
  • Job Profiles and Training for Employment Counsellors

    Job Profiles and Training for Employment Counsellors

    The European Commission Mutual Learning Programme for Public Employment Services DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion JOB PROFILES AND TRAINING FOR EMPLOYMENT COUNSELLORS Analytical paper September 2012 This publication is commissioned by the European Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (2007-2013). This programme is implemented by the European Commission. It was established to financially support the implementation of the objectives of the European Union in the employment, social affairs and equal opportunities area, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the EU2020 goals in these fields. The seven-year programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape the development of appropriate and effective employment and social legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA-EEA and EU candidate and pre-candidate countries. For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/progress For more information on the PES to PES Dialogue programme see: http://ec.europa.eu/social/pes-to-pes Editor: DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Unit C3 - Skills, Mobility and Employment Services. Author: dr Łukasz Sienkiewicz, Warsaw School of Economics In collaboration with ICF GHK and the Budapest Institute Please cite this publication as: European Commission (2012), Job profiles and training for employment counsellors, Brussels, Author: Łukasz Sienkiewicz The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... i 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1 1.1 The skills and competences of employment counsellors have been identified as being critical to achieving successful placement outcomes, but little was known about existing profiles, training and career pathways from a comparative perspective ..................................................................
  • Initial Draft Policy Recommendation on Expert Testimony

    Initial Draft Policy Recommendation on Expert Testimony

    NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FORENSIC SCIENCE PRESENTATION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Experts should be asked to identify and explain the theoretical and factual basis for any conclusion and the reasoning on which the conclusion is based — and any limitations of their conclusions. 2. Experts should present testimony in a manner that accurately and fairly conveys the significance of their conclusions, avoiding unexplained or undefined technical terms or words of art. 3. Experts should remain neutral, and attorneys should respect this neutrality. 4. Experts should not testify beyond their expertise and should also appreciate the difference between testimony that the witness may give as an expert and testimony that the same witness may give as a lay/fact witness.1 5. Experts should not testify on direct or redirect examination concerning case-specific conclusions not contained in the report(s)/documentation submitted in discovery — unless in fair response to issues raised on cross-examination. If an expert changes his or her opinion, a supplementary report should be submitted except where the change is occasioned by new information, presented during testimony and not previously available to the witness. 1 The same witness may provide testimony as both an expert or a lay witness. The two roles need to be distinguished. The Federal Rules do “not distinguish between expert and lay witnesses, but rather between expert and lay testimony. Certainly it is possible for the same witness to provide both lay and expert testimony in a single case.” FED. R. EVID. 701 advisory committee’s note (2000). 1 6. Experts should not testify concerning conclusions that are beyond the limits of a laboratory’s testing protocols.
  • Occum Inciment Et Fugia Nobitas Ditate Quam Neurolaw

    Occum Inciment Et Fugia Nobitas Ditate Quam Neurolaw

    from SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012 Volume 24, Issue 5 A publication of the American Society of Trial Consultants Foundation Occum inciment et fugia nobitas ditate quam Neurolaw: Trial Tips for Today and Game Changing Questions for the Future By Alison Bennett HE FUTURE OF LAW is standing on the courthouse steps. cannot predict the point in time at which the intersection of Neurolaw – the combination of neuroscience research technology and law will merge to create credible courtroom Tand the law – is worthy of attention for a number of evidence, we can look to neurolaw research today for research reasons. Neuroscientists are conducting ground-breaking findings that confirm current trial practice techniques and research with a machine called a functional MRI, or fMRI, offer new insights into jury decision making and the art of which is similar to traditional MRI technology but focuses on persuasion. brain activity, not just structure. Some would argue the use of neuroscientific evidence based on fMRI research is a premature Current Criminal Trial Applications adoption of a novel technology, but neurolaw evidence is already In the United States, neuroscientific evidence has been influencing jury trials in the United States and abroad. Billions admitted in over one hundred criminal trials now, has been of dollars are being pored into interdisciplinary neuroscience cited in at least one U. S. Supreme Court case, and is being research each year in the United States and abroad. While we admitted as evidence in other countries as well. In many cases, September/October 2012 - Volume 24, Issue 5 thejuryexpert.com 1 neuroscientific evidence was offered to mitigate sentencing “John grasped the object” and “Pablo kicked the ball.” by presenting neuroimaging highlighting brain damage that The scans revealed activity in the motor cortex, which could have diminished the perpetrator’s capacity and ability coordinates the body’s movements, indicating imagining to make rational decisions.
  • Ohio Rules of Evidence

    Ohio Rules of Evidence

    OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope of rules: applicability; privileges; exceptions 102 Purpose and construction; supplementary principles 103 Rulings on evidence 104 Preliminary questions 105 Limited admissibility 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements Article II JUDICIAL NOTICE 201 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts Article III PRESUMPTIONS 301 Presumptions in general in civil actions and proceedings 302 [Reserved] Article IV RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS 401 Definition of “relevant evidence” 402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible 403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay 404 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes 405 Methods of proving character 406 Habit; routine practice 407 Subsequent remedial measures 408 Compromise and offers to compromise 409 Payment of medical and similar expenses 410 Inadmissibility of pleas, offers of pleas, and related statements 411 Liability insurance Article V PRIVILEGES 501 General rule Article VI WITNESS 601 General rule of competency 602 Lack of personal knowledge 603 Oath or affirmation Rule 604 Interpreters 605 Competency of judge as witness 606 Competency of juror as witness 607 Impeachment 608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness 609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime 610 Religious beliefs or opinions 611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation 612 Writing used to refresh memory 613 Impeachment by self-contradiction