Why Attend?
The rules of civil and criminal procedure and evidence have serious consequences to the designation and admissibility of expert testimony. Who is an “expert” and not a “lay” witness? When is an expert “forensic” with specialty codes of ethics compared with “ordinary” expert opinion? Is expert opinion related to mental health or psychological and social science different than opinions in accounting, business valuations, or tort? What are the timing and requirements for employing, designation, reports, and pretrial “gatekeeping” motions? What are the standards under Daubert and State v. Williams, and their progeny, for an expert opinion? When is an “expert” (improperly) a “truth detector”? When is the expert opinion ipse dixit (because “I” say it is so it must be so)? What is the risk of rulings like de bene, or “goes to weight not admissibility”?
The failure to understand the rules of procedure, evidence, privilege, ethics, and confidentiality, can derail entire cases and clients-and increase the lawyer’s risk.
Attendees will receive a PPT with the rules of evidence and procedure, with current case law, that includes prior presentations and materials.
Attend and Learn
- What are the current rules and case law concerning civil and criminal expert designations
- Who is an expert? [May seem obvious but it is not].
- How (and when) to work with the “consulting or non-testimonial expert”?
- How to avoid the consequences of not properly designating experts?
- How to generate a proper foundation and authentication for the expert, including social media, texts, and other postings?
- How to effectively manage direct and cross-examination of expert witnesses and reports, and the standards for admissibility?
- How to overcome key barriers to getting expert testimony or documents admitted or excluded?
- What are the differences between psychological forensic expert opinion (competency and criminal responsibility, risk assessments and parental capacity evaluations), and forensic accounting and business valuations?
AGENDA
Part I: Pre-Trial Considerations
- Use of the “Consultation/Testimonial Expert”
- Mandatory and Discretionary Designations of Experts
- Motions in limine: Maybe/Maybe Not
- To Report or Not to Report?
- Preservation Letters and Privilege/Work Product
- Discovery and the Scope of Confidentiality and Privilege
Part II. Foundation: Unreliable Materials and Hearsay
- Rule 104. Preliminary Questions Matter.
- Rule 106: The “Rule of Completeness” in the Electronic Age
- Rules 401-03: Test for Relevant and Reliable Evidence
- Rules 901-03. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
- Rules 1001-07. Writings, Pics, and Recordings
Part III: Expert Witnesses: From Reliability to Junk Science
- R.Civ.P 26(b) and M.R.U.C.P 16A
- Privilege and Work Product—Ethical Considerations (1.0 Ethics credit)
- Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
- Rule 702. Qualifications and Testimony by Expert Witnesses
- Rule 703. Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony
- Rule 704. Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
- Rule 705. Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying Opinion
- Rule 706. Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses
Part IV: Use of Specific Experts and Case Law
- Daubert and the trinity of U.S. Supreme Court cases
- State v. Williams and its progeny: Any differences?
- Physical versus Social Sciences-Reliability and Relevance
- Forensic Accounting and Valuations
- Child Custody Evaluations and the Best Interests Standards
- Psychological Testing and Risk Assessments
- Competency and Criminal Responsibility
Part V: Trial Considerations and Ethical Strategies
- Preparation for Final Trial Conferences
- Direct and Cross Examinations of Experts
- Preserving the Record
- Tactics and Risks of Voir Dire
- Seymour and Rule 201. Judicial Notice
- The Ethics of “Junk Science” and Candor to the Trial Court
