Search results
1 – 10 of 27Madeline Ann Domino, Matthew Stradiot and Mariah Webinger
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…
Abstract
Purpose
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.
Design/methodology/approach
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.
Findings
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.
Originality/value
These results will be of interest to judges, lawyers and forensic accountants acting as expert witnesses.
Details
Keywords
Derk G. Rasmussen and Joseph L. Leauanae
Defines an expert witness as a specialist who uses special knowledge, skill, training or experience to provide testimony to aid the factfinder. Discusses the criteria and…
Abstract
Defines an expert witness as a specialist who uses special knowledge, skill, training or experience to provide testimony to aid the factfinder. Discusses the criteria and qualifications that should guide the selection of a forensic accounting expert witness. Outlines the areas of expertise within forensic accounting: investigative accounting, economic loss calculation, business and intangible asset valuation. Describes how the expert is matched to the engagement, using six examples; these include misappropriation of funds, business interruption, valuation of a business interest, construction contract damage, marital dissolution, and breach of contract. Refers to the Daubert and Kumho Tire cases, where expertise was challenged as “junk science”, and considers the “beauty contest” choice between two similarly qualified and experienced practitioners.
Details
Keywords
Junghee Han and Chang-min Park
This paper aims at investigating the role of institutional entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship to cope with firm’ impasses by adoption of the new technology ahead of…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims at investigating the role of institutional entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship to cope with firm’ impasses by adoption of the new technology ahead of other firms. Also, this paper elucidates the importance of own specific institutional and corporate entrepreneurship created from firm’s norm.
Design/methodology/approach
The utilized research frame is as follows: first, perspective of studies on institutional and corporate entrepreneurship are performed using prior literature and preliminary references; second, analytical research frame was proposed; finally, phase-based cases are conducted so as to identify research objective.
Findings
Kumho Tire was the first tire manufacturer in the world to exploit the utilization of radio-frequency identification for passenger carâ’s tire. Kumho Tire takes great satisfaction in lots of failures to develop the cutting edge technology using advanced information and communication technology cultivated by heterogeneous institution and corporate entrepreneurship.
Originality/value
The firm concentrated its resources into building the organization’s communication process and enhancing the quality of its human resources from the early stages of their birth so as to create distinguishable corporate entrepreneurship.
Details
Keywords
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…
Abstract
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.
All societies in the modern world are troubled by crime, and the general public is equally fascinated by criminals and fearful of criminal behaviour. In the United Kingdom, events…
Abstract
All societies in the modern world are troubled by crime, and the general public is equally fascinated by criminals and fearful of criminal behaviour. In the United Kingdom, events such as the murders of Jack the Ripper, the Yorkshire Ripper and Harold Shipman, and the Soham tragedy, coupled with film and television programmes including Silence of the Lambs, Cracker and Crime Scene Investigation, have fuelled the public's consciousness of the criminal mind.In the fight against crime, the development of offender profiling by the FBI in the USA has further captured people's imagination. The technique was introduced to help law enforcement agencies solve serious crimes such as serial rape or murder, and to a lesser extent arson and property crime. At the heart of profiling lies the belief that by combining psychological principles with crime scene analysis, it is possible to identify the likely characteristics of a perpetrator.Although advances in crime detection are welcomed, the profiling field appears riddled with contradiction and disagreement. Social scientists argue that the discipline is unscientific due to methodologically weak research, while police officers appear sceptical about its benefits for solving crime. In Britain, profiling has witnessed both notable successes, for example Canter's profile of the serial rapist and murderer John Duffy, and dramatic failures, such as the Colin Stagg profile in the Rachel Nickell inquiry. This article reviews the offender profiling literature, examines its applicability in the legal system and identifies areas for future research.
Details
Keywords
The desire to be part of the new global economy is prompting many countries to challenge long-standing patriarchal assumptions and addresses the issue of sexual harassment in the…
Abstract
The desire to be part of the new global economy is prompting many countries to challenge long-standing patriarchal assumptions and addresses the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. The state of sexual harassment policy in any country allows them to be classified into tiers, depending on the degree to which the country is confronting the issue of sexual harassment. Tier I countries are simply not dealing with sexual harassment. The primary distinction between Tier II, III and IV countries is the degree to which they are addressing the issue. The non-inhabited Tier X classification would represent an idealized, gender-egalitarian workplace.
Jane Ireland and John Beaumont
Expert evidence is a contentious area with a number of high profile cases highlighting unreliable “scientific” expert evidence, leading to appeals and acquittals. The purpose of…
Abstract
Purpose
Expert evidence is a contentious area with a number of high profile cases highlighting unreliable “scientific” expert evidence, leading to appeals and acquittals. The purpose of this paper is to argue for improvement in the assessment of expert evidence reliability to avoid such difficulties.
Design/methodology/approach
A review of the area focused on the history of developing legal criteria for admitting “scientific” evidence. It examined the benefits and difficulties of approaches, and proposes an amendment to criteria for increased transparency and evidenced decision making.
Findings
The review indicated a range of difficulties with “expert” evidence admissibility, including inconsistency, an over-focus on narrow elements of evidence, difficulties in interpretation, and the potential to unfairly restrict evidence. An alternative to current approaches is proposed. This takes the form of a two-stage approach to consider whether or not to admit expert evidence. It comprises a preparation and an examination stage. The former seeks to critically review the evidence and define its nature. The latter applies two sets of criteria; a Daubert application for generally accepted physical sciences, and proposes an Abridged-Daubert for novel and social/behavioural sciences. Also proposed is increased involvement by experts in critically reviewing their own evidence and in providing statements of limitations.
Practical implications
The paper concludes by outlining the importance of developing such an approach for the UK legal system. It focuses on the application of specific criterion which could assist both Courts and witnesses to evaluate the quality of evidence prior to submission by accounting for the nature of the opinion evidence provided.
Originality/value
The paper outlines a practical approach to examining evidence which has benefit to practitioners and advocates when opinion evidence is outlined.
Details
Keywords
In this article, I examine the role of judicial narratives in constructing, constraining, and delimiting the boundaries of social scientific and expert knowledge – specifically…
Abstract
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.