Urges Judges’ Consideration Presenting Expert Testimony to Jurors
RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges judges and lawyers to consider the following factors in determining the manner in which expert testimony should be presented to a jury and in instructing the jury in its evaluation of expert scientific testimony in criminal and delinquency proceedings:
1. Whether experts can identify and explain the theoretical and factual basis for any
opinion given in their testimony and the reasoning upon which the opinion is
based.
2. Whether experts use clear and consistent terminology in presenting their opinions.
3. Whether experts present their testimony in a manner that accurately and fairly
conveys the significance of their conclusions, including any relevant limitations of
the methodology used.
4. Whether experts explain the reliability of evidence and fairly address problems
with evidence including relevant evidence of laboratory error, contamination, or
sample mishandling.
5. Whether expert testimony of individuality or uniqueness is based on valid scientific
research.
6. Whether the court should prohibit the parties from tendering witnesses as experts
and should refrain from declaring witnesses to be experts in the presence of the
jury.
7. Whether to include in jury instructions additional specific factors that might be especially
important to a jury’s ability to fairly assess the reliability of and weight to be given expert
testimony on particular issues in the case.
RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges judges and lawyers to consider the following factors in determining the manner in which expert testimony should be presented to a jury and in instructing the jury in its evaluation of expert scientific testimony in criminal and delinquency proceedings:
1. Whether experts can identify and explain the theoretical and factual basis for any
opinion given in their testimony and the reasoning upon which the opinion is
based.
2. Whether experts use clear and consistent terminology in presenting their opinions.
3. Whether experts present their testimony in a manner that accurately and fairly
conveys the significance of their conclusions, including any relevant limitations of
the methodology used.
4. Whether experts explain the reliability of evidence and fairly address problems
with evidence including relevant evidence of laboratory error, contamination, or
sample mishandling.
5. Whether expert testimony of individuality or uniqueness is based on valid scientific
research.
6. Whether the court should prohibit the parties from tendering witnesses as experts
and should refrain from declaring witnesses to be experts in the presence of the
jury.
7. Whether to include in jury instructions additional specific factors that might be especially
important to a jury’s ability to fairly assess the reliability of and weight to be given expert
testimony on particular issues in the case.
8:12 PM February 5, 2012
Judges also should consider whether experts have taken reasonable measures to protect themselves from bias. See e.g., http://www.economist.com/node/21543121
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1416943
7:58 PM February 10, 2012
max_lewandowski@yahoo.com I Max Lewandowski would like to hear from anyone whom can assist me in obtaining DNA testing for case#32D01-9412-CF-392 crime code 35-42-4-3 NCiC#3601,county of conviction Hendricks,Danville,Indiana.Date committed 07/04/1994Date convicted 10/29/1996Date released04/02/2000.Attorney Brian Johnson (317)718-7000 6th Amendment violation Post Conviction Attorney ,Judge David Coleman say case too old Pro Tempro Judge Paula Saura.Daughter Alibi/States Witness.Count2 added day of trial past Omnibus date “elventh-hour”motion 0 eye-witness.No physical evidence.Det.Krieger Plainfield Police Dept. Investigator 1075 West Main Street,Plainfield,IN46168 Sincerly Max Lewandowski DOC#970148 (DOC#189162 John Schmitt Landlord’s brother inlaw now in prison 3112E.Main St.Plainfield,IN46168 Sand’s Motel Wally Beg owner(317)903-1987 present cell phone number)