Recently in Expert Witness Rules Category

Two bills that will reform the Psychiatric Security Review Board passed the Oregon House and Senate and represent the most substantive changes to Oregon’s mental health system in many years.  The bills change the PSRB’s authority in terms of the board’s involvement when a court decides if a criminal is “guilty except for insanity,” and when certain patients are released from the Oregon State Hospital.

Rep. Matt Wand (R-Troutdale) was uncomfortable with the court being required to use, as expert witnesses, psychologists or psychiatrists certified by a state agency.  House Bill 3100, he said, doesn’t include particular provisions about the credentials a certified psychologist or psychiatrist must have to be an expert witness. 

Read more: thelundreport.org.

Expert witnesses in the UK have had their immunity from lawsuits removed by the UK Supreme Court. The groundbreaking judgment in Jones-v-Kaney, handed down in March, overturns four centuries of expert witnesses being given immunity from negligence claims.

The Supreme Court decided by a majority of 5-2 that the shield protecting experts from negligence claims could not be justified. Fears have been expressed over whether the loss of immunity will make experts less willing to testify in court and the effect the ruling will have on the cost of using expert witnesses in litigation cases.

Read more: mortgagefinancegazette.com.

Members of the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate Judiciary committees yesterday held a public hearing on special session bills relating to tort reform, certain provisions of which the State Bar of Wisconsin opposes. The State Bar’s Board of Governors has established public policy positions opposing three provisions included in the bill: Strict Liability/Product Liability, Limits on Noneconomic Damages, and Expert and Lay Witness Testimony.

The special session bill provisions would essentially conform Wisconsin law regarding the opinions of lay and expert witnesses to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

In 2003, the State Bar’s Board of Governors adopted a public policy position opposing legislation substantially similar to the provisions of the special session bills. The State Bar believes that any such changes to rules relating to expert and lay witness testimony are best addressed by Wisconsin Supreme Court rules, not legislatively.

Under state law, expert witness testimony is generally admissible if: (1) it is relevant (2) the witness is qualified as an expert and (3) the evidence will assist the jury in determining an issue of fact.  The reliability of the evidence is a weight and credibility issue for the jury, and any reliability challenges are made through cross-examination or other means of impeachment.

Read more: wisbar.com.