You are here

Expert Evidence

Displaying 1 - 10 of 20
Contains
Contains
Format: 2019
Greater than or equal to
November 20, 2017

This video covers the quality assurance programs implemented by the forensic laboratories throughout the country. For more information, please refer to the Discipline-Specific Baseline Documents section at the NIST.gov website. To go back to the main Fingerprint Identification page, click here.

November 20, 2017
Jed S. Rakoff

Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) summarizes the materials on this site about fingerprint identification and what judges should consider when weighing expert testimony. To go back to the main Fingerprint Identification page, click here.

November 20, 2017

A brief introduction to fingerprints: How fingerprint properties (uniqueness, consistency, and ridge pattern) make fingerprints a useful forensic tool. To go back to the main Fingerprint Identification page, click here.

November 20, 2017
Jed S. Rakoff

Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) introduces website materials that cover fingerprint identification and what judges should consider when considering and responding to challenges to the admissibility of fingerprint evidence and testimony. To go back to the main Fingerprint Identification page, click here.

January 1, 2011
Margaret A. Berger

In 1993, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals ushered in a new era with regard to the admissibility of expert testimony. As expert testimony has become increasingly essential in a wide variety of litigated cases, the Daubert opinion has had an enormous impact. If plaintiffs’ expert proof is excluded on a crucial issue, plaintiffs cannot win and usually cannot even get their case to a jury. This discussion begins with a brief overview of the Supreme Court’s three opinions on expert testimony—often called the Daubert trilogy—and their impact.

Downloadable file:
PDF icon Download 29 pages
January 1, 2009
Downloadable file:
PDF icon Download 6 pages
March 22, 2004
Robert J. Niemic, Shannon R. Wheatman

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires each party to disclose to the other, at specified time intervals, a variety of information about their case. These mandatory disclosures are covered by Rule 26: (a)(1) initial disclosure, (a)(2) expert testimony disclosure, and (a)(3) pretrial disclosure. Civil Rule 26 is made applicable to adversary proceedings (APs) in bankruptcy by Rule 7026 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Rule 26 is Appendix 1.

Downloadable file:
PDF icon Download 60 pages
January 1, 2002
Carol L. Krafka, D. Dean P. Miletich, Joe S. Cecil, Meghan A. Dunn, Mary T. Johnson

This is an expanded version of Expert Testimony in Federal Civil Trials: A Preliminary Analysis (2000). In 1998, the Federal Judicial Center surveyed federal judges about their experiences with expert testimony in civil cases. Judges answered specific questions about their most recent relevant civil trial, as well as questions drawing on their overall experience with expert testimony in civil cases.

Downloadable file:
PDF icon Download 24 pages
June 15, 2001
Laural L. Hooper, Joe S. Cecil, Thomas E. Willging

This report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management describes two different types of independent panels used in the silicone gel breast implants litigation. The use of such panels of appointed experts represents a marked departure from the traditional means of presenting and considering testimony. This report describes these expert panels in sufficient detail to permit others to understand the procedures that were used, the benefits that resulted, and the problems that arose.

Downloadable file:
PDF icon Download 104 pages
January 1, 2000
Margaret A. Berger

(PDF, pp. 9-38)

Downloadable file:

Pages

Subscribe to Expert Evidence