Search results

This paper aims to investigate factors which may influence or bias judges’ decisions to exclude or admit the testimony of accounting expert witnesses, under the US judicial guidelines commonly known as the Daubert/Kuhmo standards. Accounting experts are increasingly providing expert testimony as a part of financial litigation support services.

Judges’ decisions, in which opposing council evoked a Daubert/Kuhmo challenge to the testimony provided by 130 professional accountants serving as expert witnesses, were analyzed. The period of study was 2010 through 2014. Based on prior research, three variables believed to potentially influence or bias judges to systematically exclude expert testimony were examined: gender, complexity and familiarity.

The results of binary logistic regression show that none of the variables has a significant relationship to the accounting expert witnesses’ probability of surviving a challenge to Daubert/Kuhmo standards. Findings suggest that judges are objective in evaluating the testimony provided by accounting experts under Daubert/Kuhmo guidelines and that they may be immune to biases based solely on gender, complexity and familiarity.

These results will be of interest to judges, lawyers and forensic accountants acting as expert witnesses.

The use of expert testimony in arbitration is explored. Why has it become so important in arbitration? The author has examined when and how to use an expert's testimony. He also discusses how to counteract an expert's testimony.

In this article, I examine the role of judicial narratives in constructing, constraining, and delimiting the boundaries of social scientific and expert knowledge – specifically, in the context of gay and lesbian parents’ custody and adoption cases. Examining not only the judicial narratives in appellate cases over the last fifty years in the United States, but also expert reports and briefs obtained from attorneys in these cases and interviews with judges, attorneys and litigants, I investigate the role of judicial narratives in adjudicating between competing social scientific claims about sexuality and child welfare, constructing expertise, and ultimately deciding what is valid knowledge and what is not. I focus specifically on the ways in which judges credit and discredit social scientific evidence, experts, and knowledge claims. The power of legal actors and particularly judges to police the boundaries of knowledge and expertise in the context of the custody case and the judicial narrative is complicated by the observation that this form of social scientific knowledge is not only the object acted upon and shaped by these power dynamics, but is also itself a source of power and legitimation.

Expert witnessing in asylum cases involves depicting the conditions of the applicant’s home country as a context for judging a well-founded fear for life or safety. Most of the elements involved in the work of the expert country witness are dynamic and change over time, creating new challenges and new resources for describing and interpreting country context. Examining several characteristic Honduran asylum cases separated by 20 years reveals not only an increasingly complex and multifaceted set of relevant conditions in both the sending and the host country, but also a significant broadening of the anthropological “tool kit” available to the expert country witness (as the expert witness becomes aware of its relevance to country conditions at a particular time), and an increasingly reflexive and complex relationship of the expert witness to the country in question and to the court. In the interim, emerging problems of contextual complexity, subjectivity, changing and competing images of reality, and the shifting applicability of legal and sociological definitions and categories arise and can be partially addressed with emerging anthropological or social scientific resources, raising anew the nature of the relationship of the expert witness to the court and the possible mutual influence of social science and legal culture upon each other over time. As the number of refugee seekers increases globally, can expert witnesses trained in social sciences help asylum courts to imagine new ways of bridging the gap between legal regimes of governmentality and the subjectivity of refugees?

In class action antitrust litigation, the standards for acceptable economic analysis at class certification have continued to evolve. The most recent event in this evolution is the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1435 (2013). The evolution of pre-Comcast law on this topic is presented, the Comcast decision is thoroughly assessed, as are the standards for developing reliable economic analysis. This article explains how economic evidence of both antitrust liability and damages ought to be developed in light of the teachings of Comcast, and how liability evidence can be used by economists to support a finding of common impact for certification purposes. In addition, the article addresses how statistical techniques such as averaging, price-dispersion analysis, and multiple regressions have and should be employed to establish common proof of damages.

In this chapter we compare and contrast our relationships with clients in our roles as expert witnesses, consultants, and specialists with the relationships we have with our subjects and informants as research anthropologists and as we collect ethnographic data. While there are qualities that differentiate the relationships we have as expert witnesses, consultants, and specialists with our clients from the relationships that we develop as anthropologists working with informants in the field, there are also important similarities. We build upon our experiences as anthropologists and our roles serving as expert witnesses, specialists, and consultants to argue that the similarities and differences must be considered. Specifically, we examine the concept of guilt and innocence for informants and clients, the place of the individual in the group, and the larger cultural framework that defines our clients and informants as individuals worthy of our interest.

When someone’s actions deviate from the social norms of the majority, those actions may be used as the basis for criminal charges against the person, even when the person’s actions are considered innocent within his or her culture. This chapter examines the evidence that can be presented on behalf of a person wishing to invoke a cultural defense, and the author also shares her own experiences in utilizing the defense as an attorney. Cultural defenses can be effective; however, there are arguments both for and against its use. Also explained are processes of pretrial litigation, qualifying an expert witness, trial, sentencing, and appeals.

The purpose of the present study is to analyze highly cited articles and global research emphases and trends of law and psychiatry (L&P) research during the period of 1993 to 2012 from the Web of Science (WOS) database. Besides the analysis of highly cited articles to learn about the classic articles and intellectual base of the L&P research domain, an attempt is made to detect research emphases and trends of the study field.

The present study applies quantitative analyses of citations of scientific publications to find highly cited articles and summarizes research hotspots and trends on L&P research articles from WOS during 1993-2012 using statistical analysis of words in titles, KeyWords Plus, author keywords and co-keywords.

The top 21 highly cited articles of research on L&P were found; most of the highly cited papers used survey research to measure patterns of violence of psychiatric patients. This present study identified forensic psychiatry, mental health and criminal offenders were the continuing mainstream topics in the L&P field and risk assessment, risk factors and risk management of violent behavior, legislation for sexual offences, mental health courts, recidivism and expert testimony were recent research emphases and trends of the study field. On the contrary, psychiatric hospitalization, psychiatrist-patient, community and services were not mainstream topics in the study field and were of decreasing importance and popularity in L&P research. Additionally, the topics of violent behavior and risk assessment have developed to a significant subgroup of L&P research. Finally, research emphases and trends in the L&P field were found based on the co-keywords cluster map and density map.

This is the first study to quantify and detect research emphases and trends in L&P from the WOS during 1993-2012, which may provide the groundwork for future studies of the L&P research domain, and offer some important suggestions and implications for professional researchers, specialists, publications’ editors and public policy makers concerned with the domain.