#you see as the expert witness in this subject I can testify that the scientific reason for this is becuase they /are/ brothers your honor | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

bones-jeffersonian · 8 years ago

Photo

💀💀 Thank You Bones 💀💀

Day 2 - 11 Temperance Brennan’s character growth moments

The second day of the Thank You Bones challenge focus on Temperance Brennan's character growth moments and I have to say this is a very good topic and there are numerous scenes/moments where we witnessed Brennan's growth. I’ve learn a million things and even after 9 years of seeing this show, Brennan continues to be my daily inspiration (and will continue forever). Brennan’s character helped me when I needed most and I cannot imagine where I would be right now if I didn’t find Bones. Choosing 11 moments was difficult but these are the ones that had the biggest impact in me, and decided to leave here a piece of my mind for each one.

Episode 1x08 - Court scene

This was not the first episode I ever saw of Bones, but it was one that made fall in love with this show, especially this scene. Brennan after solving a crime have the role of being an expert witness when the case goes to court, and as in all her work she is meticulous and straightforward delivering the evidence, as the way she ought to be in my opinion. Nevertheless, the jury never fully understand her and consider her cold (as most people think) and quickly sympathise with the defendant expert witness, which in this particular episode was Brennan's old teacher. And since he knows her and her methods and how she delivers the evidence, he uses it in his favour, trying to discredit Brennan's work. Of course Brennan get frustrated because she is showing all the necessary prove to condemn the murder suspects and everyone seems to discard her evidence. And then she reaches a breaking point and have that emotional and truthful testimony, which until now has shown to me the true nature of Temperance Brennan. Yes she testify without leaving behind every scientific detail of the case, pronouncing all the scientific jargon but in no way or moment she is being less truthful to the victim, she understands more than anyone what she reads from the bones, what the victim suffered, where the victim lived, which fractures the victim may have suffered. Quoting Brennan from another episode : "People lie. But bones always tell the truth". She never understood why people didn’t like her and knew people didn’t follow her thought but she showed them how much she care, how she sees the truth in the bones, and doesn’t matter if she is nicer or even likeable when standing in court. The only important thing is to make justice and show the truth.

Episode 3x12 - Last scene between Brennan and Booth

First I love this episode in so many ways, that I will comment on two issues related to today's subject. By this time, everyone already knew that Brennan was a foster kid for some years and it was an experience which profoundly left marks. And, despite how in the beginning she was reluctant to temporarily taking care of baby Andy, she was so incredibly adorable, and took care of him and give him so much love when the poor baby had lost his mother (I could never believe there are people saying that Brennan has no emotions). My point here is that even if Brennan had always thought about not having children, because in her perspective and experience the world is a cruel place to bring a child, I noted a small change of opinion or at least a consideration in the future in terms of having children (which thankfully we all witnessed). She has some bad memories from her childhood, and in that way she did everything to find a good family for Andy, to prevent him to go through the same experiences as she did in foster care. The second point is when Brennan decides to give some of her money to the town which was facing with serious financial problems. At the beginning Brennan seems unmoved related to this matter and even comments that on a financial perspective this happens a lot of times. Although I never believed she was indifferent to the problem, and I had my prove at the end when she decides to help them build the town again, and consequently help the new Andy's family survive and get him the chance to grow up in his and his mother birth town.

Episode 3x13 - Living room scene between Brennan and Booth

I added this episode in the first day tribute and I chose again for the second day because Brennan learned so much in this episode. She is divided between what is rational and what her heart wants. Though the heart is just a muscle and can't obviously think. She reunited with her father after so long and now he is facing murder charges. She wants her father not to be condemned but she also see by all evidences that he might be guilty. The scene with Booth in Brennan's house is amazing, "You're not Dr. Brennan today. You're Temperance. [...] The scientist part of you got sidelined, temporarily". I believe she understood both parts but she was nervous of choosing what her heart wanted. And then, for my delight and inspiration, she chose both. She wants her father not be convicted and she found a logic way to prove his innocence. Though in the end those proofs were not physical, but indeed a theory that she might have committed the murder herself, she used logic and reasonable data to induce that theory. And she had her most wanted result, her father was declared not guilty and he could finally share a life with his daughter. So many things Brennan has taught me, but one that remains transversal to all the others, is that no matter how cold it may seems to choose the rational option, we can always use both heart and brain for any decision in life. There is no prejudice in throwing a rational variable in the overall equation, and make it work with the heart component.

Episode 5x10 - Car scene between Brennan and Booth

This episode is set on Christmas time, and despite this is my favourite holiday, it is not the entire reason why this episode is one of my favourite. When in the beginning sounded like Santa Claus ruined Christmas by robbing a bank, soon the truth was revealed, bringing sadness with it. A simple yet honest man was chosen randomly and forced to rob a bank and ended up dying, whom funeral was schedule to Christmas morning. I cannot imagine the pain that mother endured. And thus, Brennan's reaction was my one and once more we saw that she has indeed a bigger heart than most give her credit for. She tries not to attach to the victims she investigates because it can be painful like this one, but sometimes the emotion is too big to overcome. And Brennan ultimately decides to go to the funeral of the victim, giving support to his mother, something that probably Brennan never imagined doing it. Sometimes is the little things that counts.

Episode 6x09 - Whole episode honestly but specially the car scene

There is so much to say about this episode that I am afraid on rambling indefinitely. This episode means a lot to me in so many ways, not only because I saw a beloved character going through a critic emotional state but also because I relate to the story in a way. Brennan in this episode “sees” so many similarities between the victim and herself. An important job, a big career, very focused on work, very little personal life. And she comes to the realization that maybe she will have the same fate as the victim, that no one will notice her absence. She realizes then that she may have lost the opportunity to be happy, she could've lived differently and that scene in the car shock me to death. I am not saying that Booth should've run to her and leave Hannah. This is life and sometimes the timing can ruin everything (and we all knew they are meant for each other so eventually they would get together). It was heart crushing seeing Brennan crying in the car but in my opinion this was a turning point in her life. She understood that are somethings in life she can't put on hold or even ignore. She didn't had her outcome (yet) but in the end she is in peace with herself, she is sad, but it is so much better than dead. And most important, she is not alone.

Episode 6x22 - Room scene

Despite so much happened in this episode and scene, I will be focusing on Brennan's reaction to the death of Vincent Nigel Murray. The sudden death in the platform was incredible emotional and Brennan couldn't contain the tears right there when Vincent just died right in front of her. And then she quickly focus on giving support to the people around her. She quickly tries to explain to Booth that it wasn't his fault and tries at all cost proceed with the investigation and find Broadsky. Just after the reality settles down she truly feels everything that happened that day. And what really breaks my heart was that she thought Vincent's last words were related to her work with him, that she wanted him to leave. She was so devastated by his departure and even question how can there be a god if he lets good people go away. I ask the same question multiple times honestly. My point is, that no matter how people see she is hard with her interns it's only to help them improve to be better and efficient scientists. As in episode 11x18, as Arastoo pointed out, Brennan cares so deeply for her interns and most people don't see it just because she is direct and very professional on the lab. After Vincent's death I don't think she started to love more her interns (she always did), but rather show them more her affection in the little things, because she wants them to know that she is grateful for having them.

Episode 7x07 - All episode, but specially the birth scene

Well this episode is just amazing and again there is so much to discuss. But I want to particularly focus on the birth scene, because I do believe much changed in Brennan's character. We could see during this season that Brennan feels a little afraid of having a family (and all that entailed), which is already such a difference compared to when she rationally decided to have a child on 4x25. The circumstances changed and most important Brennan grew. I often remember about the scene where Angela said to Brennan when she was pregnant, that she shouldn't just hold on the bad moments of her childhood, but to find those happy moments with her family before her parents went away. And I think when Brennan first held Christine she truly understood the concept of family and what happiness can be. Family is such an important matter in Brennan's life (and all the other characters really) and, as I already referred, she has a perspective which didn't allowed her to be excited and happy when thinking about a family. And despite her bad memories and experiences, I am really glad she had the chance to write her own history and have a family she deserves. This is in my perspective a turning point, where we have episodes like 3x12 or the interview in 1x11 when she said she would never have children, to I am pregnant again and I can continue eating cookies! This is for me one of the biggest growth of Brennan's character (and of course we were very lucky to see it).

Episode 10x02 - Sweets' funeral

This episode is full of emotions for every character. Once again, Brennan had to face the loss of a friend in such a sudden way. Despite all the differences between Brennan and Sweets they were truly friends and even lived together for a while. I chose this moment, not only because of the pain Brennan endured of the loss of a friend, but also because of the support Brennan gave Daisy. Daisy lost her love and the father of her child. And even though Daisy still was Brennan's intern, she put it on the side those titles and help her in this time of need. Brennan could see how much someone can lose, and how some things matter more than others "Loving each other, that’s what makes life worthwhile". And it wasn't only the support she gave Daisy on this time, we could see on the following episodes Brennan was always there when Daisy needed, in her personal and work life. As I said before, I never doubted Brennan cared about people, I just think she had trouble in show it, in part maybe because no one ever cared for in the same way. And we see she is much more open to it, she has no doubt in showing her care and love to her family and friends.

Episode 11x18 - Last scene focused on Brennan’s perspective

With Christine growing up, Brennan expects nothing than brilliance from her daughter. And on those terms, Brennan believes Christine will follow her mother's footsteps and become an extraordinary forensic anthropologist. She just doesn’t believe that Christine’s brilliant mind should be used for something with less purpose. I understand Brennan's point of view but seeing her adapt her ideals were so rewarding. This whole episode is perfect because it dignifies what a person want to be when grows up, and despite this is a common question for children I truly loved that they applied on adults. Isn't never too late to have new dreams and expectations for the future. And in this case, seeing Brennan changing her expectations related to Christine were simple the purest. Christine can be whatever she choses, Brennan will be there to support and love her. Hence, she wants to be the mother of the world’s greatest car sales person.

Episode 11x20 - Last scene between Clark and Brennan

Maybe I have already stated this a million times before but honestly is never enough. In this episode we could see that Brennan doesn't only care for Clark but have a high respect for his work. During this episode she was always truthful to the evidence presented to her and never consider Clark to be the murdered. Not only she remained objective throughout the investigation as she cleared Clark’s name and prove his innocence. And after that Brennan even helped restore his accuracy in the scientific community, and explain to Clark that a true scientist confronts his mistakes and move forward. Besides this, Brennan even agreed on staying at a first name basis with Clark! This moment/episode once again showed the true friend and brilliant teacher Brennan is. She saw this man grew into an excellent forensic anthropologist and I believe she couldn’t be prouder.

Episode 12x02 - Brennan's birthday party

In this episode we see again the results of the long path of Brennan's character growth. First her own birthday party: I don't think in the past Brennan would care about throwing herself a birthday party. I loved how she wants it to make the party for her family and friends and not particularly for her. Again this woman is amazing. Second Brennan’s recommends Angela for the MacArthur grant: Angela and Brennan's friendship is such an important relationship in this show, it helped Brennan find someone who truly cared about her and helped her sometimes see the world in different ways. And even though in the past Brennan may seemed careless and uninterested on Angela's work, I never doubt Brennan respected and admired Angela's work. I think that is what Brennan saw in Angela when they first met (though is not in screen). She recognised an immense talent and she knew Angela could be so much more. This award is just the perfect recognition of the amazing Angela's work and how much Brennan care and admire. Third Brennan's recommendation of Daisy to NFL: again as I commented before, Brennan grew and shows more her respect and friendship to her interns, and Daisy was an example of it. No matter if in the past they had their divergences, Brennan sees Daisy as a respectful and brilliant scientist and colleague and thus recommended her for the job for the NFL, which Daisy got it. These ladies have gone through some rough paths but they respect each other work and have a beautiful friendship.

#thankyoubones #day 2 #1x08 #3x12 #3x13 #5x10 #6x09 #6x22 #7x07 #10x02 #11x18 #11x20 #12x02 #sorry for the long post

74 notes · View notes

maxwellyjordan · 5 years ago

Text

Relist Watch

John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists.

Since our last update, the Supreme Court has been doing a great job thinning the ranks of the relists, by:

granting review in a Religious Freedom Restoration Act case;

summarily vacating a campaign-finance decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and “remand[ing] for that court to revisit whether Alaska’s campaign contribution limits are consistent with our First Amendment precedents,” including one 2006 precedent, Randall v. Sorrell, that the 9th Circuit opinion already explicitly addressed;

finally denying review on the much-relisted Gundy v. United States nondelegation-doctrine rehearing petition, and in the process shaking loose a statement respecting denial in a companion case in which the only member of the court not to sit on Gundy opined that Justice Neil Gorsuch’s delegation-skeptical separate opinion in that case “may warrant further consideration”;

denying review in a capital case in which the trial judge had a significant history prosecuting the defendant in previous matters and opposing clemency efforts, with a separate opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor; and

denying review in two cases involving allegations of defamation based on commentary critical of a climate scientist, drawing Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent from denial of cert.

Phew! I don’t know about you, but just letting all those thoughts wander through my head is more activity than I usually get in a month. So let me just pause here for a moment to catch my breath.

[Two days later.] The court also added two new relists. Both are pretty fact-intensive, so both seem more like separate-opinion fodder than plenary-review material.

First up is Reed v. Texas, 19-411, a capital case filed by a member of O.J. Simpson’s dream team that raises three questions. I’ll begin with the last question, which has been kicking around since before I graduated from law school 25 years ago: whether the conviction of (or, more to the point, the execution of) a person who is actually innocent of the crime violates the Constitution. The case also raises questions about the interaction of Brady v. Maryland and the state’s obligation to turn over material exculpatory evidence when the witness in question is asserting the privilege against self-incrimination. Lastly, the cert petition asks whether it violates constitutional due process when expert testimony the state relies on is later shown to be scientifically invalid. We’ll see, but I suspect we have an opinion coming.

That brings us to a relist with the impossibly New Englandy caption Smyth v. Conservation Commission of Falmouth, 19-223, involving a small (.37 of an acre) property that petitioner Janice Smyth’s parents bought in the 1970s at the southwestern end of Cape Cod. The state appellate court concluded that various building restrictions “reduced the value of the property from $700,000 (if buildable) to $60,000 (if unbuildable),” which the petitioner contends constitutes a regulatory taking under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York. Penn Central has been heavily criticized over the years. In the coming weeks, we’ll find out how much those criticisms are resonating.

Until next time, thanks for tuning in!

New Relists

Reed v. Texas, 19-411

Issues: (1) How a court should consider under the Brady materiality standard the impact of a key trial witness’s assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination and refusal to testify when confronted with the suppressed exculpatory evidence; (2) when expert testimony relied on by the state in a criminal trial is later shown to be scientifically invalid, what is the appropriate standard to assess whether the state’s use of the testimony violated due process; and (3) whether the conviction or execution of a person who is actually innocent of a crime violates the U. S. Constitution.

(relisted after the November 22 conference)

Smyth v. Conservation Commission of Falmouth, 19-223

Issues: (1) Whether the loss of all developmental use of property and a 91.5 percent decline in its value is a sufficient “economic impact” to support a regulatory takings claim under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City; (2) whether a person who acquires land in a developed area, prior to regulation, has a legitimate “expectation” of building and, if so, whether that interest can be defeated by a lack of investment in construction; and (3) whether the Supreme Court should excise the “character” factor from Penn Central regulatory takings analysis.

(relisted after the November 22 conference)

Returning Relists

Terry v. Oklahoma, 18-8801

Issue: Whether the boundaries established in the Treaty of February 23, 1867, for the eight tribes within the former Indian Territory of northeastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C § 1151(a).

(relisted after the October 1, October 11, October 18, November 1, November 8, November 15 and November 22 conferences)

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 18-9526

Issue: Whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.

(relisted after the October 1, October 11, October 18, November 1, November 8, November 15 and November 22 conferences)

Carney v. Adams, 19-309

Issues: (1) Whether the First Amendment invalidates a longstanding state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts, with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the “other major political party”; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in holding that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring that no more than a “bare majority” of three of the state courts may be made up of judges affiliated with any one political party is not severable from a provision that judges who are not members of the majority party on those courts must be members of the other “major political party,” when the former requirement existed for more than 50 years without the latter, and the former requirement, without the latter, continues to govern appointments to two other courts.

(relisted after the November 8, November 15 and November 22 conferences)

Andrus v. Texas, 18-9674

Issue: Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced in Strickland v. Washington, fails to protect the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the 14th Amendment right to due process when, in death-penalty cases involving flagrantly deficient performance, courts can deny relief following a truncated “no prejudice” analysis that does not account for the evidence amassed in a habeas proceeding and relies on a trial record shaped by trial counsel’s ineffective representation.

(rescheduled before the November 1 and November 8 conferences; relisted after the November 15 and November 22 conferences)

Schexnayder v. Vannoy, 18-8341

Issue: Whether jurists of reason could debate whether to apply deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act to a state court decision arising out of a secret, 13-year-long policy to deny all pro se prisoner writ applications without judicial review.

(rescheduled before the October 1, October 11, October 18, November 1, and November 8 conferences; relisted after the November 15 and November 22 conferences)

The post Relist Watch appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/relist-watch-155/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes

melissawalker01 · 5 years ago

Text

Probate Lawyer Midway Utah

In a probate litigation that you are involved in, you may be required to testify in court as a witness. Always speak to an experienced Midway Utah probate lawyer before you testify in a probate court. The witness’ role in a probate litigation can be described in four scenarios: (1) answering questions, (2) interacting with the examining attorney, (3) collaborating with his or her own attorney, and (4) his or her personal deportment and appearance.

youtube

Remember, your Midway Utah probate lawyer will be present. He or she will guide and support you. Your attorney cannot answer for you, but can tell you when you should not answer by objecting to any question deemed inappropriate. It is your right to consult your attorney at any time for direction, explanation, or clarification. This must be a team effort. Tell the truth and convey that idea in each response. Never lie! Remember that you are under oath. Lying under oath is perjury—a felony, a crime. Each answer must be as truthful and as accurate as possible. Do not attempt to distort or hide the facts; this could impeach your credibility and severely compromise your defense. Be sincere, open, and forthright at all times. Do not equivocate or try to manipulate the facts in such a way as to present yourself or your case in a more favorable light. Never admit any liability or blame! Never mention that an incident report was prepared. Make no attempt to justify your actions or decisions, or propose your rationale for them. Offer no excuses for any of your actions. Unless asked, do not mention the names of any other persons. Never blame or accuse others. Do not make denigrating remarks about others.

Do not make prejudicial comments of any kind. Do not try to evade a question or change the subject. Make each answer as positive as possible. Do not state dates, times, or any other facts or data unequivocally if you are not absolutely certain of them. Avoid such words as [always] and [never]. Do not give an opinion in answer to a question unless you have been deposed as an expert witness. If specific facts are requested, answer only to the extent of your direct knowledge of such facts. Do not substantially change an answer without good reason. Qualify, explain, or expand an answer only if it is absolutely necessary. Avoid such qualifying statements as [maybe], [possibly], [if, [perhaps], [to tell the truth], [honestly], [I think], [might have], and other such vague phrases. Do not speculate, theorize, or hypothesize. Never make assumptions. Never guess!

youtube

If you are asked to approximate, estimate, or guess, phrase your response so that it is clearly qualified as such. State directly if you do not know an answer or that you do not remember. Say: [I do not know] or [I do not remember]. These are acceptable, truthful, and appropriate answers. Never say what you do not know.

Answer the question asked and only that question. Do not give the opposing attorney more information than is required by the question. Doing so could provide ideas for a new line of questioning. Do not volunteer any information. The whole purpose of the deposition is to make the examining attorney [discover] the facts. Make the examining attorney ask questions. You are not there to educate the examining attorney or present him or her with any advantage. Do not fall into the [pregnant pause] trap. If the examining attorney reacts to your answer with a long expectant silence, ignore it. Answer each question in as few words as possible. The best answer is the briefest, most direct. A succinct [yes] or [no] is usually adequate and always advisable. Be direct and to the point in answering each question. Each answer should be as concise and as unambiguous as possible. Do not respond to a question with any information or data of which you do not have firsthand knowledge.

You can provide hearsay information if this is requested but only if it is clearly identified as such. Do not attempt to answer until the attorney has finished the question. Confirm to yourself that you fully understand the question before attempting to answer it. Do not allow yourself to be pressured or rushed in answering. Do not let the examining attorney force a [yes] or [no] answer; say what you must say to answer the question completely. Take as much time as you need to formulate your response. Pause for a moment or two before answering. This provides your attorney time to object to a question that may be inappropriate. An objection is your signal to immediately stop answering a question. If a question is ambiguous or unclear, ask that it be clarified, repeated, or rephrased. You do not have to say why.

If the question is long, convoluted, complex, or compound, request that it be simplified. You do not have to say why. Do not anticipate questions. You may be reasonably certain of what is going to be asked next. Wait until it is asked. If the examining attorney attempts to cut you off, affirm that you have not finished speaking, and continue your answer. If he or she persists, remain silent and wait for your own attorney to present the question to you again in their examination. Correct what you believe to be any errors in facts stated by opposing counsel. Respectfully challenge any erroneous assumptions. Be alert for a series of leading questions in quick succession. Be alert for hypothetical questions; these are for the expert witness only, not the fact witness. Do not answer questions by gestures or by nodding or shaking your head. All responses must be oral, audible, and clear so that they can be accurately recorded in the transcript. Avoid the use of slang, jargon, idioms; use proper grammar.

youtube

Do not rely on your memory; it may lead to errors or contradictions. Utilize the medical record and any other resources as necessary. Take your time in finding any document you need. If you must use medical or scientific terms, be sure you use the correct term in the correct context. You may be asked to spell such terms—be prepared. Ask to examine any document that opposing counsel refers to in framing a question. If you are given documents or other items to examine or identify, do so very carefully before answering any questions. If you have been deposed and are testifying as a nurse expert witness, do not readily accept the opposition’s cited authors as the sole authorities on the subject.

Do not be intimidated. Take control! Keep your wits about you. Do your best to maintain your self-control. Do not get excited or upset. Try very hard not to lose your temper and become visibly angry.

Do not let yourself become sarcastic, testy, or irritable. The opposing attorney may do his or her utmost to rattle you and provoke you. This is a test to see how well you will stand up in a courtroom before a jury. Stay calm. You will be challenged; do not react in kind. Maintain your composure, even when being blatantly provoked. Be assertive but not aggressive. Do not take an overly offensive or defensive stance. Defend yourself, your dignity, and your rights. Confirm that you will not be bullied or intimidated. Be extremely cautious of overly agreeing with the examining attorney. Do not become inordinately friendly with the opposing attorney. Remember this person is an adversary. He or she is not your personal enemy but is not your friend. Be polite, courteous, and respectful. Look directly at the attorney when you are being asked a question and when answering. Never argue. You can not win. You can challenge, dispute, or disregard, but do not allow yourself to be drawn into an argument. The deposition must not turn into a battle of wits or egos. Remember, this is not a platform for debate. The experienced trial attorney has an undeniable edge here. Play to beat the attorney at his or her own game. Do not make it easy for him or her!

As a general rule, never sit beside your attorney when being questioned. Request that you be seated so that your attorney is directly in your view. Do not turn and look to your attorney for help in answering a question. He or she cannot do this in a deposition or a trial. A deponent is expected to answer each question spontaneously as best as he or she can, and in his or her own words. Constantly looking toward your attorney may prompt a criticism or a challenge from the examining attorney, who may accuse you of uncertainty, lack of conviction, lack of self-confidence, or of hiding something. Stop speaking immediately whenever your attorney interjects. Listen very carefully to any objection being made by your attorney. It may provide clues to an appropriate answer.

As necessary, you can write notes to your attorney, or quietly ask questions while sitting at the table. Do not communicate with your attorney when someone else—attorney or deponent—is speaking. It is not advisable to ask your attorney questions or make any statements regarding the case that could be overheard by opposing counsel or by any one else.

Maintain your self-control at all times. Remember: It is your deposition! Be honest and credible. Be positive. Present yourself as a professional at all times. Look and act confident. Exude competence. Be cordial, polite, and civil throughout the proceedings. Try to be as relaxed as possible. Do not embellish or exaggerate. Do not emote—no hyperbole, theatrics, histrionics. Never allow yourself to appear weak, apologetic, repentant. Do not play for sympathy. You will get none of it here. Do not whine or complain. Do not appear cavalier or overly casual. Do not surrender under a salvo of interrogation. Be organized, come prepared. Be knowledgeable, but do not be pedantic. Unless you are an expert witness, you are not there to teach. Try not to sound [rehearsed], [coached], or [canned]. Speak only when spoken to during your examination. As a general rule, do not interrupt another. Speak slowly, clearly, and loud enough for all present to hear you. Stop speaking when your attorney or opposing counsel begins speaking (unless the latter is interrupting you). Your body language will speak volumes about you. Always be aware of your posture, movements, and facial expressions. Do not testify with your arms crossed. This could indicate a defensive, hostile posture.

Make yourself as comfortable as possible before you start. Sit up straight; sit still. You may hold something in your hand, but hold it still. Avoid touching yourself or your clothing unnecessarily or too frequently. Do not look at your watch; this can convey the impression of impatience. Do not try to be amusing, tell jokes, or quip. This is not the time for it. Make a best effort to appear very interested even when the proceedings may become very boring. Remain alert and attentive, particularly when you are being questioned or when another deponent is testifying. You may look around during pauses but always keep your gaze up. Do not sit staring abjectly at the table or at the floor. Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by the presence of the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff’s family. They may have been instructed to sit in your line of sight and stare hostilely at you.

Deponent’s Personal Appearance

How a witness presents himself or herself can make a favorable or unfavorable impression in a videotaped deposition or live—before a jury. The witness should:

• Appear neat and well groomed;

• dress for and act the role of a professional;

• wear conservative, comfortable clothing;

• not wear excess or oversized jewelry;

• and not reek of perfume or aftershave lotion.

Hire the Services of an expert – An experienced Midway Utah probate lawyer Utah probate law is complex. You must never attempt to navigate the complex maze of probate laws and rules alone. Seek the assistance of an experienced Midway Utah probate lawyer.

Midway Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a probate lawyer in Midway Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Does It Matter Who Files First For Divorce?

Criminal Defense Lawyer American Fork Utah

Children Of Wealthier Parents More Affected By Divorce

False Accusations Of Abuse During Divorce

FAQ About Open Adoptions

What Is A Tax Audit?

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-midway-utah/ from Divorce Lawyer Nelson Farms Utah https://divorcelawyernelsonfarmsutah.tumblr.com/post/188296945070

0 notes

advertphoto · 5 years ago

Text

Probate Lawyer Midway Utah

youtube

Do not be intimidated. Take control! Keep your wits about you. Do your best to maintain your self-control. Do not get excited or upset. Try very hard not to lose your temper and become visibly angry.

Deponent’s Personal Appearance

How a witness presents himself or herself can make a favorable or unfavorable impression in a videotaped deposition or live—before a jury. The witness should:

• Appear neat and well groomed;

• dress for and act the role of a professional;

• wear conservative, comfortable clothing;

• not wear excess or oversized jewelry;

• and not reek of perfume or aftershave lotion.

Midway Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a probate lawyer in Midway Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Does It Matter Who Files First For Divorce?

Criminal Defense Lawyer American Fork Utah

Children Of Wealthier Parents More Affected By Divorce

False Accusations Of Abuse During Divorce

FAQ About Open Adoptions

What Is A Tax Audit?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-midway-utah/

0 notes

aretia · 5 years ago

Text

Probate Lawyer Midway Utah

youtube

Do not be intimidated. Take control! Keep your wits about you. Do your best to maintain your self-control. Do not get excited or upset. Try very hard not to lose your temper and become visibly angry.

Deponent’s Personal Appearance

How a witness presents himself or herself can make a favorable or unfavorable impression in a videotaped deposition or live—before a jury. The witness should:

• Appear neat and well groomed;

• dress for and act the role of a professional;

• wear conservative, comfortable clothing;

• not wear excess or oversized jewelry;

• and not reek of perfume or aftershave lotion.

Midway Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a probate lawyer in Midway Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Does It Matter Who Files First For Divorce?

Criminal Defense Lawyer American Fork Utah

Children Of Wealthier Parents More Affected By Divorce

False Accusations Of Abuse During Divorce

FAQ About Open Adoptions

What Is A Tax Audit?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-midway-utah/

0 notes

mayarosa47 · 5 years ago

Text

Probate Lawyer Midway Utah

Do not be intimidated. Take control! Keep your wits about you. Do your best to maintain your self-control. Do not get excited or upset. Try very hard not to lose your temper and become visibly angry.

Deponent’s Personal Appearance

How a witness presents himself or herself can make a favorable or unfavorable impression in a videotaped deposition or live—before a jury. The witness should:

• Appear neat and well groomed;

• dress for and act the role of a professional;

• wear conservative, comfortable clothing;

• not wear excess or oversized jewelry;

• and not reek of perfume or aftershave lotion.

Midway Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a probate lawyer in Midway Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Does It Matter Who Files First For Divorce?

Criminal Defense Lawyer American Fork Utah

Children Of Wealthier Parents More Affected By Divorce

False Accusations Of Abuse During Divorce

FAQ About Open Adoptions

What Is A Tax Audit?

from https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-midway-utah/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah - Blog http://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.weebly.com/blog/probate-lawyer-midway-utah

0 notes

michaeljames1221 · 5 years ago

Text

Probate Lawyer Midway Utah

youtube

Do not be intimidated. Take control! Keep your wits about you. Do your best to maintain your self-control. Do not get excited or upset. Try very hard not to lose your temper and become visibly angry.

Deponent’s Personal Appearance

How a witness presents himself or herself can make a favorable or unfavorable impression in a videotaped deposition or live—before a jury. The witness should:

• Appear neat and well groomed;

• dress for and act the role of a professional;

• wear conservative, comfortable clothing;

• not wear excess or oversized jewelry;

• and not reek of perfume or aftershave lotion.

Midway Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a probate lawyer in Midway Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Does It Matter Who Files First For Divorce?

Criminal Defense Lawyer American Fork Utah

Children Of Wealthier Parents More Affected By Divorce

False Accusations Of Abuse During Divorce

FAQ About Open Adoptions

What Is A Tax Audit?

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-midway-utah/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah https://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.wordpress.com/2019/10/12/probate-lawyer-midway-utah/

0 notes

asafeatherwould · 5 years ago

Text

Probate Lawyer Midway Utah

youtube

Do not be intimidated. Take control! Keep your wits about you. Do your best to maintain your self-control. Do not get excited or upset. Try very hard not to lose your temper and become visibly angry.

Deponent’s Personal Appearance

How a witness presents himself or herself can make a favorable or unfavorable impression in a videotaped deposition or live—before a jury. The witness should:

• Appear neat and well groomed;

• dress for and act the role of a professional;

• wear conservative, comfortable clothing;

• not wear excess or oversized jewelry;

• and not reek of perfume or aftershave lotion.

Midway Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a probate lawyer in Midway Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Does It Matter Who Files First For Divorce?

Criminal Defense Lawyer American Fork Utah

Children Of Wealthier Parents More Affected By Divorce

False Accusations Of Abuse During Divorce

FAQ About Open Adoptions

What Is A Tax Audit?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-midway-utah/

0 notes

gonnagoandrunwiththehorses · 5 years ago

Text

Probate Lawyer Midway Utah

youtube

Do not be intimidated. Take control! Keep your wits about you. Do your best to maintain your self-control. Do not get excited or upset. Try very hard not to lose your temper and become visibly angry.

Deponent’s Personal Appearance

How a witness presents himself or herself can make a favorable or unfavorable impression in a videotaped deposition or live—before a jury. The witness should:

• Appear neat and well groomed;

• dress for and act the role of a professional;

• wear conservative, comfortable clothing;

• not wear excess or oversized jewelry;

• and not reek of perfume or aftershave lotion.

Midway Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a probate lawyer in Midway Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Does It Matter Who Files First For Divorce?

Criminal Defense Lawyer American Fork Utah

Children Of Wealthier Parents More Affected By Divorce

False Accusations Of Abuse During Divorce

FAQ About Open Adoptions

What Is A Tax Audit?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-midway-utah/

0 notes

coming-from-hell · 5 years ago

Text

Probate Lawyer Midway Utah

youtube

Do not be intimidated. Take control! Keep your wits about you. Do your best to maintain your self-control. Do not get excited or upset. Try very hard not to lose your temper and become visibly angry.

Deponent’s Personal Appearance

How a witness presents himself or herself can make a favorable or unfavorable impression in a videotaped deposition or live—before a jury. The witness should:

• Appear neat and well groomed;

• dress for and act the role of a professional;

• wear conservative, comfortable clothing;

• not wear excess or oversized jewelry;

• and not reek of perfume or aftershave lotion.

Midway Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a probate lawyer in Midway Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Does It Matter Who Files First For Divorce?

Criminal Defense Lawyer American Fork Utah

Children Of Wealthier Parents More Affected By Divorce

False Accusations Of Abuse During Divorce

FAQ About Open Adoptions

What Is A Tax Audit?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-midway-utah/

0 notes

divorcelawyergunnisonutah · 5 years ago

Text

Probate Lawyer Midway Utah

youtube

Do not be intimidated. Take control! Keep your wits about you. Do your best to maintain your self-control. Do not get excited or upset. Try very hard not to lose your temper and become visibly angry.

Deponent’s Personal Appearance

How a witness presents himself or herself can make a favorable or unfavorable impression in a videotaped deposition or live—before a jury. The witness should:

• Appear neat and well groomed;

• dress for and act the role of a professional;

• wear conservative, comfortable clothing;

• not wear excess or oversized jewelry;

• and not reek of perfume or aftershave lotion.

Midway Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a probate lawyer in Midway Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Does It Matter Who Files First For Divorce?

Criminal Defense Lawyer American Fork Utah

Children Of Wealthier Parents More Affected By Divorce

False Accusations Of Abuse During Divorce

FAQ About Open Adoptions

What Is A Tax Audit?

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-midway-utah/

0 notes

legalseat · 6 years ago

Text

Best Practices When Preparing To Cross-Examine Expert Witnesses

Cross examination of an expert can feel like a daunting task. Not only are you asking direct, pointed questions, sometimes specifically designed to discredit or call into question a witness’ opinion, you are doing so to someone who’s expertise in a given area far exceeds your own. Even with a month of undivided preparation time, your knowledge and skill on the issue at hand will not rival their Ph.D. in the subject. So what is an attorney to do?

Prepare, Prepare, Prepare

Having your own expert to consult and discuss issues with is a huge benefit. However, you will still have to cross examine the other expert on your own. As the lawyer, it is up to you to evaluate strategy, develop themes, and present the case. In preparation for your cross examination, nothing helps an attorney prepare like a chat with the other side’s expert. The approach to the meeting, and the follow up from the meeting, will vary depending on a number of circumstances, including state rules and local practice. For example, while depositions are common place in criminal cases in Florida, they are almost unheard of in Minnesota.

At the meeting or deposition, an attorney has the opportunity to assess the basis for the expert’s opinion. Attorneys are encouraged to push the basis of knowledge offered. If an expert claims, “There are studies to support this,” push to identify which studies. Then take the next step and obtain those studies and review them for accuracy. Do they actually say what the expert claimed they said? Are there caveats the expert did not consider?

Attorneys should carefully consider their approach to a pretrial meeting. Confrontation and cross examination may not be the best approaches. Asking open ended questions in a pretrial meeting gives the attorney to assess how the expert might testify on direct. It also gives the expert the opportunity to talk at length, and provide information about the basis for their opinion beyond what may be considered in cross examination questions. This gives the attorney a better idea of how to prepare for cross examination at trial.

Know the Facts

One area where an attorney can excel is in making certain they have a better grasp on the facts of the case than the expert. Expert opinions are based on facts that are case specific. Whether or not CPR was administered to a child by an untrained but very strong man can impact the assessment of when or how the child’s ribs were broken. Whether the kitchen contained a slow cooker with a faulty electrical cord may impact the potential for an accidental fire. The expert’s opinion is limited by the facts as known to the expert. Make certain any comparisons are fair ones.

Q. You indicated on direct that there was support for your position in the literature.

A. That’s right.

Q. You cited Exhibit 12 as supporting your proposition that a child could be shaken so hard a vertebrae in their spinal column could break.

A. That’s right.

Q. The research paper that you cited, it wasn’t specifically about broken vertebrae in shaken infants, was it?

A. No, it was about child abuse in general.

Q. And in fact, the article specifically cited one instance of this happening.

A. Yes. So it has happened.

Q. But that child was 9 weeks old.

A. I’m not really sure how old the child was.

Q. I can show you the Exhibit if you’d like.

A. Yes. 9 weeks old.

Q. The child in this case was 13 months old.

A. Okay.

Q. The child referenced in the Exhibit weighed just over 10 pounds.

A. That’s right.

Q. But the child in this case weighed 26 pounds.

A. 26.2, I believe.

Follow Up

In states and cases where depositions take place, it makes sense to ask the witness to review their testimony and correct any errors. In cases where the meeting is not recorded, it makes good sense to send a letter after the meeting, summarizing your understanding of what was said. The letter should also ask that any misstatements be corrected. You can’t make the expert respond, of course. However, a skilled litigator can use any response – or the choice not to respond – in trial if the need arises.

Dear Dr. Jones,

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me in your office on December 23, 2017. I appreciated the opportunity to speak with you about the case. As a reminder, you indicated you would locate those studies supporting your position that the flu vaccination regularly causes an allergic reaction in 10 % of the population. Additionally, I want to confirm my understanding of what you said about the reaction my client suffered. As I understand your statements, the reaction was a result of her allergies, not a problem with the vaccination itself. Can you confirm this is a correct recitation of your position? Many thanks.

Regards.

With this sort of documentation, an attorney can pursue one of two approaches at trial, should the witness testify in a way that is unexpected.

Q. Dr., didn’t you and I meet in December of last year to discuss this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And didn’t I send you a letter asking you about my client’s reaction?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did, in fact, confirm the facts as I recited them in my letter?

Q. And you didn’t respond to my request, did you?

In either event, the witness’ credibility is called into question.

Research and Review Best Practices

In many cases, your own expert can assist in directing you to best practices for the field. If a discipline involves science, it is reasonable to expect there are standards that guide scientists on how to approach an issue. By reviewing an opposing expert’s work, and questioning them ahead of time about how they approached the problem, a line of cross examination may present itself to an attorney who knows how the work is supposed to be performed in the field.

Q. Are you familiar with the National Fire Protection Association?

A. Of course.

Q. Are you aware the NFPA puts out publications discussing best practices?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with NFPA 1033, which discusses a fire investigator’s professional qualifications?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with NFPA 1033 requirement 4.1.2, which calls for fire investigators to “employ all elements of the scientific method as the operating analytical process throughout the investigation and for the drawing of conclusions?”

A. Yes.

Q. But you didn’t do that in this case, did you?

A. I most certainly did.

Q. Are you familiar with NFPA 921?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the steps listed for employing the scientific method?

A. Of course.

Q. It includes collecting data?

A. Yes.

Q. Analyzing data?

A. I did that.

Q. Developing a hypothesis?

A. Yes.

Q. And testing the hypothesis?

A. I couldn’t test the hypothesis. I put that in my report.

Q. Are you aware of NFPA 921 4.3.6.1, which states, “Any hypothesis that is incapable of being tested either physically or analytically is an invalid hypotheses?”

Check Their Work

You don’t need to know a lot about closed head injuries to know that if a doctor says an infant’s head injury is similar to that of a car crash at 55 miles an hour, this at least suggests he’s seen an infant head injury from a car crash at 55 miles an hour. Take a look at the expert’s CV and pull some statistics. Do you know how many infants died in car crashes in 2015 in your state? What about the ten years before that? Is there more than one medical examiner in your state? More than one medical examiner in the office? When experts make claims about their experience, they should be able to back it up with data to support their claims.

Q. Doctor, as I understand it, 0 children under one year of age were killed in traffic fatalities in 2015 in Colorado.

A. I’m not sure where you are getting your data.

Q. The National Highway Transportation Safety Associate reports that, in addition to zero infant deaths in traffic fatalities in 2015, there were zero infant deaths associated with traffic fatalities in 2014 in Colorado as well.

A. As I said, I’m not sure where you are getting your data.

Q. Is it your testimony that you have examined an infant who died as the result of a traffic fatality in 2015?

A. No.

Q. 2014?

A. No.

Q. You testified on direct the injuries this infant sustained were the same as if they had been in a car crash when the car was traveling 55 mph. What, exactly do you base this opinion on, if you haven’t actually autopsied any children in the same age range under those circumstances?

A. My training and experience, of course.

Q. What experience, exactly?

A. I did my residency in North Dakota.

Q. How many infant deaths associated with traffic accidents did you see there? Should we look it up?

Of course, this approach only works if one has researched the data and has it readily available during the trial.

Prepping for Cross Exam

In every case involving expert testimony, one cannot discount the need for preparation. Preparation includes meeting with the opposing expert and identifying areas of attack, from the scientific basis for the expert’s conclusions, to best practices, to relevant studies in the field, to hands on experience.

The post Best Practices When Preparing To Cross-Examine Expert Witnesses appeared first on The Expert Institute.

Best Practices When Preparing To Cross-Examine Expert Witnesses published first on https://divorcelawyermumbai.tumblr.com/

0 notes

legalroll · 6 years ago

Text

Best Practices When Preparing To Cross-Examine Expert Witnesses

Prepare, Prepare, Prepare

Know the Facts

Q. You indicated on direct that there was support for your position in the literature.

A. That’s right.

Q. You cited Exhibit 12 as supporting your proposition that a child could be shaken so hard a vertebrae in their spinal column could break.

A. That’s right.

Q. The research paper that you cited, it wasn’t specifically about broken vertebrae in shaken infants, was it?

A. No, it was about child abuse in general.

Q. And in fact, the article specifically cited one instance of this happening.

A. Yes. So it has happened.

Q. But that child was 9 weeks old.

A. I’m not really sure how old the child was.

Q. I can show you the Exhibit if you’d like.

A. Yes. 9 weeks old.

Q. The child in this case was 13 months old.

A. Okay.

Q. The child referenced in the Exhibit weighed just over 10 pounds.

A. That’s right.

Q. But the child in this case weighed 26 pounds.

A. 26.2, I believe.

Follow Up

Dear Dr. Jones,

Regards.

With this sort of documentation, an attorney can pursue one of two approaches at trial, should the witness testify in a way that is unexpected.

Q. Dr., didn’t you and I meet in December of last year to discuss this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And didn’t I send you a letter asking you about my client’s reaction?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did, in fact, confirm the facts as I recited them in my letter?

Q. And you didn’t respond to my request, did you?

In either event, the witness’ credibility is called into question.

Research and Review Best Practices

Q. Are you familiar with the National Fire Protection Association?

A. Of course.

Q. Are you aware the NFPA puts out publications discussing best practices?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with NFPA 1033, which discusses a fire investigator’s professional qualifications?

A. Yes.

Q. But you didn’t do that in this case, did you?

A. I most certainly did.

Q. Are you familiar with NFPA 921?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the steps listed for employing the scientific method?

A. Of course.

Q. It includes collecting data?

A. Yes.

Q. Analyzing data?

A. I did that.

Q. Developing a hypothesis?

A. Yes.

Q. And testing the hypothesis?

A. I couldn’t test the hypothesis. I put that in my report.

Q. Are you aware of NFPA 921 4.3.6.1, which states, “Any hypothesis that is incapable of being tested either physically or analytically is an invalid hypotheses?”

Check Their Work

Q. Doctor, as I understand it, 0 children under one year of age were killed in traffic fatalities in 2015 in Colorado.

A. I’m not sure where you are getting your data.

A. As I said, I’m not sure where you are getting your data.

Q. Is it your testimony that you have examined an infant who died as the result of a traffic fatality in 2015?

A. No.

Q. 2014?

A. No.

A. My training and experience, of course.

Q. What experience, exactly?

A. I did my residency in North Dakota.

Q. How many infant deaths associated with traffic accidents did you see there? Should we look it up?

Of course, this approach only works if one has researched the data and has it readily available during the trial.

Prepping for Cross Exam

The post Best Practices When Preparing To Cross-Examine Expert Witnesses appeared first on The Expert Institute.

Best Practices When Preparing To Cross-Examine Expert Witnesses published first on https://medium.com/@SanAntonioAttorney

0 notes

fayeburnsus · 6 years ago

Text

Best Practices When Preparing To Cross-Examine Expert Witnesses

Prepare, Prepare, Prepare

Know the Facts

Q. You indicated on direct that there was support for your position in the literature.

A. That’s right.

Q. You cited Exhibit 12 as supporting your proposition that a child could be shaken so hard a vertebrae in their spinal column could break.

A. That’s right.

Q. The research paper that you cited, it wasn’t specifically about broken vertebrae in shaken infants, was it?

A. No, it was about child abuse in general.

Q. And in fact, the article specifically cited one instance of this happening.

A. Yes. So it has happened.

Q. But that child was 9 weeks old.

A. I’m not really sure how old the child was.

Q. I can show you the Exhibit if you’d like.

A. Yes. 9 weeks old.

Q. The child in this case was 13 months old.

A. Okay.

Q. The child referenced in the Exhibit weighed just over 10 pounds.

A. That’s right.

Q. But the child in this case weighed 26 pounds.

A. 26.2, I believe.

Follow Up

Dear Dr. Jones,

Regards.

With this sort of documentation, an attorney can pursue one of two approaches at trial, should the witness testify in a way that is unexpected.

Q. Dr., didn’t you and I meet in December of last year to discuss this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And didn’t I send you a letter asking you about my client’s reaction?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did, in fact, confirm the facts as I recited them in my letter?

Q. And you didn’t respond to my request, did you?

In either event, the witness’ credibility is called into question.

Research and Review Best Practices

Q. Are you familiar with the National Fire Protection Association?

A. Of course.

Q. Are you aware the NFPA puts out publications discussing best practices?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with NFPA 1033, which discusses a fire investigator’s professional qualifications?

A. Yes.

Q. But you didn’t do that in this case, did you?

A. I most certainly did.

Q. Are you familiar with NFPA 921?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the steps listed for employing the scientific method?

A. Of course.

Q. It includes collecting data?

A. Yes.

Q. Analyzing data?

A. I did that.

Q. Developing a hypothesis?

A. Yes.

Q. And testing the hypothesis?

A. I couldn’t test the hypothesis. I put that in my report.

Q. Are you aware of NFPA 921 4.3.6.1, which states, “Any hypothesis that is incapable of being tested either physically or analytically is an invalid hypotheses?”

Check Their Work

Q. Doctor, as I understand it, 0 children under one year of age were killed in traffic fatalities in 2015 in Colorado.

A. I’m not sure where you are getting your data.

A. As I said, I’m not sure where you are getting your data.

Q. Is it your testimony that you have examined an infant who died as the result of a traffic fatality in 2015?

A. No.

Q. 2014?

A. No.

A. My training and experience, of course.

Q. What experience, exactly?

A. I did my residency in North Dakota.

Q. How many infant deaths associated with traffic accidents did you see there? Should we look it up?

Of course, this approach only works if one has researched the data and has it readily available during the trial.

Prepping for Cross Exam

The post Best Practices When Preparing To Cross-Examine Expert Witnesses appeared first on The Expert Institute.

from Legal News And Updates https://www.theexpertinstitute.com/best-practices-when-preparing-to-cross-examine-expert-witnesses/

0 notes

bestcbdoilshop · 7 years ago

Text

Polysorbate 60 & The Helsinki Formula for Hair Regrowth

[ad_1]

The Helsinki Formula was much in the news in the 1980s and 90s: first as a miracle cure for hair loss; and then as the center of a long drawn-out legal battle and media circus. It is a compound whose active ingredient was originally Polysorbate 60 and later Polysorbate 80, ingredients still found in many hair treatment products today.

The Finnish developer, Dr. Ilona Schreck-Purola, basically gave her formulas to any company which wanted them. She accepted stipends if offered; but many manufacturers offered none. You may see the Helsinki Formula laughingly referred to in hair loss forums, but in my opinion, much of the bad press is undeserved. So what was all the fuss about?

Two manufacturers of Helsinki Formula-based hair loss products were hauled into court by the U.S. Postal Service for making unsubstantiated drug claims through the U.S. mail. After years of legal wrangling involving: the two companies; the combined forces of the FTC, the FDA and the U.S. Postal Service (jointly referred to as "the weenies" by one of the defendants); and the U.S. Federal Court system, some of the trial judges had very interesting comments to make.

In reversing a decision against one of the Helsinki Formula manufacturers, Judge Bruce Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada commented, "It's troublesome that the U.S. Post Office has wasted so much time and taxpayer money on a product that seems to help some people with male pattern baldness alleviate, what they perceive to be a problem".

Just a year later, Judge Thompson's ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In part, the Court's opinion read, "The common opinion within the medical establishment is that nothing will grow hair".

Six years later in 1992, District Judge Richard Gadbois, writing for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California said, "There is a fair amount of evidence to the effect that perhaps the Helsinki Formula should not be effective, but in large measure the same could be said for Minoxidil (Rogaine) ... Who's to say that a balding gentleman in his middle years who comes forward and testifies fervently that his pate is becoming younger because of the Helsinki Formula is simply deluding himself."

There were 107 people who wanted to testify that the Helsinki formula worked for them. The prosecution had no witnesses ready to testify that it didn't.

As for hard evidence, I've read in hair loss forums that there have only been two scientific studies of Polysorbate 60 as a treatment for hair loss: the 1974 pro-Polysorbate Schreck-Purola study; and the 1985 con-Polysorbate Groveman et al. study. This is simply not true.

In Judge Gadbois' Findings of Fact, he cited studies by French physicians which "seemed to support the views of Dr. Purola, and a British photographic study of Helsinki Formula users [that] also suggested its efficacy. The European studies were done by careful and experienced scientists working in good faith.

Dr. Purola herself was a credible witness as to her observations and the work of others in Europe. ... Although neither the Finnish, French nor British studies pass muster under state-of-the-art scientific methods now in use, they do establish that The Helsinki Formula most probably works some of the time for a lot of people."

Of the Groveman study, Judge Gadbois commented, "There are a number of serious defects in that study, not the least of which is that it did not test the precise formula marketed as "The Helsinki Formula" and probably did not involve a sufficient number of subjects.

The study has apparently never been cited in responsible professional literature and was not much enhanced by the testimony of [the prosecution's expert witness] Dr. Ganiats, who is not a dermatologist and lacked knowledge about many details of the study." Interestingly Groveman et al. equals "Groveman HD, Ganiats T, and Klauber MR.

Finally, the judge opined, "There can be little doubt that the Upjohn Co. [the manufacturer of Rogaine], a competitor ... whose attorneys attended these proceedings assiduously, was a prime mover in the F.T.C. action here."

I would say the jury is still out on the Helsinki Formula.

Hair Loss Products Which Contain Polysorbate 60 or Polysorbate 80

Polysorbate is a surfactant, Natural Moisturizing Factor, a dispersing agent and an emulsifier. As a surfactant, it is very effective at removing surface oil and debris.

Dr. Schreck-Purola used Polysorbate 60 in her skin cancer study on mice. It is not as widely known that she used Polyusorbate 80 in successful human hair loss studies. She theorized that the surfactant action of Polysorbate cleaned DHT from the hair follicles and prevented more DHT from locking on.

DHT starvation of hair follicles is the leading theory for the cause of pattern baldness.

[ad_2] Source by Jean Bowler

Source Here: Polysorbate 60 & The Helsinki Formula for Hair Regrowth

#CBD oil #hemp oil

0 notes

keithgrosme · 7 years ago

Text

I Have Almost Nothing Bad To Say About Matthew Spencer Petersen

I have almost nothing bad to say about Mr. Matthew Spencer Petersen, President Trump's nominee to be a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Petersen is smart and well-educated. He is respected by his peers. He is, reportedly, good at his job as Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. When Senator John N. Kennedy (R-LA) asked him a series of increasingly brutal questions revealing his lack of relevant experience and knowledge about issues relevant to the federal judiciary, he responded with humility and self-effacement, not bluster or entitlement:

youtube

Mr. Petersen is manifestly not qualified to be a United States District Judge — that is, a federal trial judge. But that, in itself, does not reflect badly on him. Few people are qualified for that position. There are around 1.3 million lawyers in America and only around 2,800 federal trial judges. It's an elite job and there's no shame in not being qualified for it. It's unfortunate that he accepted the nomination, and I suppose that does not speak well of him, but it's hard to throw the first stone there — how many of us would turn down such power and such an honor out of an awareness of our own shortcomings?

But his nomination reflects very badly on this administration, on those Senators who will support him out of party loyalty, and on the American Bar Association, which rated him as qualified.

United States District Court Judges are appointed for life and are very rarely impeached. They commonly serve into their eighties or nineties. Though appointments to the United States Court of Appeals are considered more prestigious, a job as a district judge is much harder. Federal appellate judges have increasingly brutal caseloads, but those cases are presented to them with an established record (that is, the facts heard in the trial court to which they will apply the law) and each case presents a relatively limited set of issues, usually narrowed down by the parties. Appellate judges make very few, if any, on-the-spot decisions. Their job is intellectually challenging but removed from the tip of the spear: given these facts, and these arguments, and an extended opportunity to research precedent, what's the right answer?

By contrast, a district judge is a trial judge. Unlike many state judges, United States District Court judges hear both criminal and civil cases. Their criminal cases range from the mundane (a bank robber or a drug mule) to the extraordinarily complex (say, the Menendez prosecution). Their civil cases are even more varied — they handle everything from complex questions of patent law to antitrust to civil rights and constitutional law, plus many disputes under state law, which they hear as a result of various types of federal jurisdiction.1 They delegate some hearings and decisions to the Magistrate Judges they appoint, but are required to review the decisions of those Magistrate Judges. They preside over criminal and civil cases from start to finish, and will be called upon to make key decisions about them throughout. They dictate the length and breadth and nature of the trial through their pretrial rulings, and preside throughout the trial, making scores of in-the-moment evidentiary and procedural decisions each trial day. The job involves a potentially infinite amount of work — it can eat perfectionists alive.

An enormous amount of a federal judge's job is both facility with the law and judgment, borne of experience, about how litigation works. District judges have law clerks — typically people who just graduated law school. Those clerks, who usually serve for a year, often advise the judges on resolution of civil and sometimes criminal motions. For instance, if the defendant in a civil rights case files a motion to dismiss the civil complaint against him on the grounds that it is legally insufficient, a law clerk would commonly read the motion, the opposition, and the reply, research the arguments made therein, and prepare a memo outlining the arguments and the law and (depending on the judge) recommending a resolution. Once the judge makes a decision, those clerks will sometimes draft the judge's order. But those clerks have very little judgment or experience themselves, and have to rely on the judge for — lacking a better term — wisdom — that is, years of experience seeing the law applied to facts. Many of the most important and momentous rulings involve discretionary decisions that call for a great deal of experience: how much is reasonable to award this party in attorney fees in this civil rights case? Was this person's conduct "reasonable"? How long should a bank robbery trial take? How many witnesses should I let the plaintiff call to prove a particular fact? What's a reasonable amount of time for discovery in this case? Is this piece of evidence too prejudicial — that is, does its tendency to inflame the jury outweigh its probative value? How many times should I tell this jury to go back again and try to reach a consensus before declaring a mistrial? Is that expert qualified? Should I excuse that juror for cause? I have sentencing guidelines suggesting a sentence for this drug dealer, but how bad are they and what sentence do they deserve, in the scheme of things? Was this government misconduct outrageous? And in trial — unless the trial is to last for months — federal judges need to be prepared to make crucial decisions on the spot.

These decisions impact our fundamental rights. Our claims are won or lost. Our rights are vindicated or not. We are confined by the state, or not. Procedural and seemingly technical decisions often drive the outcome. And the best chance for the right result — the just result — is before the trial judge. There's a right to appeal, of course, but most wrong decisions won't be reversed. The standard of review (that is, the rule for how wrong the trial judge has to be for a judgment to be reversed) generally strongly favors the original result, appeals are lengthy and expensive, and the trial judge's original ruling has tremendous inertia.

That's why the qualifications of a federal judge are crucial. That's why it's important for a federal judge to have some facility with litigation. It's common for nominees to have civil litigation experience but not criminal litigation experience, or vice-versa, but some experience with adversarial proceedings is essential. An experienced cardiac surgeon can learn to be a vascular surgeon, and vice-versa, but a career psychiatrist (who is, after all, a medical doctor) isn't suited to be thrown into either type of surgery. If you send a career psychiatrist into surgery, no matter how good her interns are, no matter how much she studies up for a few months first, no matter how much she stops in the middle and calls surgeons for advice, somebody's going to suffer until she sort of gets the hang of it, perhaps after a few years.

Mr. Peterson is like a career psychiatrist sent to do a trauma surgeon's job. His excruciating questioning by Senator Kennedy revealed he was unfamiliar with some very basic legal concepts. Even though he's not a litigator, he has supervised litigation at the FEC, and went to law school, so I was honestly floored that he didn't know what Daubert was (it's the standard that governs how a federal judge decides whether expert scientific testimony is reliable enough for federal court, and it's why you don't see dowsers or phrenologists or psychics testify in federal civil or criminal trials) or what a motion in limine is (it's a motion asking a judge to make a pretrial decision about what evidence will or will not be permitted at trial, and is absolutely essential to federal trial practice, both civil and criminal). He didn't know what the Younger or Pullman abstention doctrines are — most lawyers would at least be able to say "those are doctrines governing when federal courts decline to resolve certain issues out of deference to states," even if they couldn't off the top of their heads connect the case to the particular subject of abstention.2 He's never tried a case and never tried a motion. These things don't make him an inadequate person. They don't even make him an inadequate lawyer — there are many law jobs involving niche issues that do not require facility with litigation. But they make him manifestly unqualified to be a federal judge. Making him one is a serious disservice to the federal judiciary, to the litigants it serves, and to the rule of law.

You can probably find similarly unqualified people in history nominated by Democrats and Republicans. I don't care. Being good at one law job (FEC Chair), being prominent, being connected, being politically astute, is not the same as being qualified for the federal trial bench. The ABA's "qualified" ranking undermines its credibility and reveals its deference to power and position.

I have almost nothing bad to say about Matthew Spencer Petersen. But I have nothing good to say about the people who nominated and supported him.

Copyright 2017 by the named Popehat author. https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/15/i-have-almost-nothing-bad-to-say-about-matthew-spencer-petersen/ via Blogger http://keithgros.blogspot.com/2017/12/i-have-almost-nothing-bad-to-say-about.html

0 notes