• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>International symposium on fire investigation science and technology >EXPERTS BEWARE: WHAT YOU SAY (AND DO) CONTINUES TO BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN 2008, 2009, AND 2010
【24h】

EXPERTS BEWARE: WHAT YOU SAY (AND DO) CONTINUES TO BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN 2008, 2009, AND 2010

机译：专家注意：你所说的（和做）在2008年，2009年和2010年的法院继续在法庭上使用了什么

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Much has been written about the importance of ensuring that scientific evidence is, indeed, scientific. Often an expert's testimony is the cornerstone of a litigant's case. A court's conclusion that the expert's testimony is based on unreliable methodology not only results in the exclusion of that testimony, it often wreaks devastating effects on the legal case of the litigant who retained the expert. A case also can be derailed due to the loss or destruction of evidence. Because expert investigators are typically the individuals making the determination as to whether and how evidence is collected or preserved, they are the most vulnerable to liability if evidence is lost or destroyed. Recent cases suggest a troubling concern for experts who perform investigations and provide testimony: exposure to personal liability arising out of the expert's testimony, the work performed, the loss or destruction of evidence, and opinions found by a court to be based on unreliable methodology. In some respects, it is surprising that it has taken this long for the specter of personal liability on the part of experts to arise. Just about every stage of an expert's work carries with it some risk of exposure to purported liability. A misunderstanding over the nature or scope of an expert's actual expertise might put an expert into a situation where they are being asked to opine on a topic with respect to which they are not qualified. An expert's testimony might be limited or barred on the ground that the expert failed to use proper methodology in forming their opinions. An expert using proper methodology might cause a change in some fundamental piece of evidence which, though proper from a scientific point of view, constitutes spoliation from a legal point of view. Even a qualified expert who follows appropriate methodologies might be barred from testifying if they fail to document or otherwise explain their methodology in a satisfactory manner. Whatever the cause, recent cases reveal a continuing trend in which parties seek to hold experts personally accountable for their litigation-related work. Though this trend is still in its infancy, actions against experts now seem likely to develop along several lines. At one end, an action might be taken against an expert's credentials through the filing of a complaint with any entity that certified the expert's skills. Some expert witnesses have found themselves the targets of defamation lawsuits brought by the party against whom the expert testified in prior litigation. Courts can sanction experts where the expert's conduct violates a court order or rule. Experts also face the risk of being sued for breach of contract by the party who hired them. Finally, independent claims against an expert for spoliation of evidence are being recognized by more courts across the country. NFPA 921, § 3.3.144 defines "spoliation" as the "loss, destruction, or material alteration of an object or document that is evidence or potential evidence in a legal proceeding by one who has the responsibility for its preservation." Historically, the remedies for spoliation were limited to court imposed sanctions in the underlying action. More recently, however, parties adversely affected by spoliation of evidence have taken to filing lawsuits directly against the individuals, including investigators, who destroyed the evidence. These lawsuits are being recognized in a number of states as claims of intentional and negligent spoliation or other artfully crafted theories of liability arising out of the spoliation. If evidence is lost or destroyed at the hands of an investigator, the investigator is in danger of being sued by the opposing party, other interested parties who were prevented from defending themselves due to the destruction, and even the investigator's own client under circumstances where the client lost the case or was sanctioned as a result of the spoliation. Even in jurisdictions that have not yet adopted or specifica
机译：非常重要的是确保科学证据的重要性，确实是科学的。通常，专家的证词是诉讼当事人的基石。法院的结论是，专家的证词是基于不可靠的方法，不仅导致排除该证词，它往往对保留专家保留的诉讼当事人的法律案例造成破坏性影响。由于证据的丢失或破坏，也可以出轨也可以出轨。由于专家调查人员通常是个人决定如何以及如何以及如何保存证据，如果证据丢失或销毁，它们是最容易责任的责任。近期案件表明对执行调查和提供证据的专家的令人不安的担忧：暴露于专家证词的个人责任，所做的工作，丧失或销毁证据的损失以及法院发现的意见，以基于不可靠的方法。在某些方面，令人惊讶的是，它已经为特殊专家的个人责任的幽灵带来了这么久。对于专家工作的每个阶段都有一些风险，旨在暴露于声称的责任。对专家实际专业知识的性质或范围的误解可能会使专家陷入一个局面，他们被要求就他们没有资格的话题。专家的证词可能有限或禁止在地面上，专家未能在形成他们的意见时使用适当的方法。使用适当方法的专家可能会导致一些基本的证据发生变化，尽管从科学的角度来看，构成了来自法律角度的疏散性。即使是遵循适当方法的合格专家也可能被禁止作证，如果它们未能以满意的方式记录或以其他方式解释其方法。无论原因是什么，近期案例都揭示了持续趋势，各方寻求持有专家对与诉讼相关的工作负责。虽然这一趋势仍处于起步阶段，但对专家的行动似乎可能沿着几条线发展。在一端，通过向专家的证书申请申请任何有任何认证专家技能的实体来说，可能会采取行动。一些专家目击者发现自己是党的诽谤诉讼的目标，并在前诉讼中的专家作证。法院可以制裁专家，专家的行为违反法院命令或规则。专家还面临着雇用他们的党被违反合同的风险。最后，对全国各地更多法院的法院承认有关证据的专家的独立索赔。 NFPA 921，第3.3.144节将“Spolial”定义为“物体或文件的损失，破坏或物质更改，这是有责任其保存的法律诉讼的证据或潜在证据。”从历史上看，SPolial的补救措施仅限于法院对基本行动的制裁。然而，最近，缔约方受到证据的消失影响的不利影响，已经向侵犯了证据而直接抵消了包括调查人员的个人申请诉讼。这些诉讼在许多国家被认可，作为故意和疏忽的疏忽或其他巧妙的责任理论的责任的索赔。如果证据在调查员手中丢失或销毁，调查员有被反对党起诉的危险，其他有关方面被阻止由于毁灭而被捍卫自己，甚至在何种情况下客户失去了案件或因疏水而被制裁。即使在尚未采用或特定的司法管辖区内

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号