How Credible is an Expert Witness?

expert credibility and jargon

If you’ve been litigating for any amount of significant time, you probably know this feeling: you and your team have prepared your arguments, worked with witnesses and reviewed evidence, and spent enough time internally going over the merits of your case, that you’re near sure you have a bulletproof case. Only to find that it all goes down in flames at summary judgment or in front of a jury. 

Obviously, the earlier you can determine that an expert witness will not be accepted as credible by a judge, the more opportunity you will have to readjust your strategy towards a more credible approach.

Mississippi Judge Uses JuriLytics' Peer Review

accounting ledger

Read about our recent involvement with a Mississippi district court judge who used our peer review process to aid his disposition of a complex accounting fraud case. The case involved 5 experts and cross Daubert motions ​opining on accounting standards, negligence, and business valuation. The district judge used JuriLytics as a technical advisor and requested peer review of the reports to aid him in his disposition of the motions.

Mass Torts Litigation in California: Don’t Forget the Science

pharmaceutical mass tort

Without a way to consolidate cases outside of plaintiff-friendly California, the defense bar will now have one less option in battling these claims. Importantly, and especially with product liability mass torts, the science will become more central to these claims as the parties will engage in a “battle of the experts” subject to the Kelly/Frye admissibility threshold (which some argue has become more Daubert-like after Sargon). Indeed, expert admissibility could become the next “dispositive” blow the defense will use to quash these claims. For plaintiffs and defendants alike, the general causation question will be even more critical to success.

Law360: Science or Advocacy? Expert Challenges and Peer Review

Science or Advocacy? Expert Challenges and Peer Review

In the academic domain, psychologists don’t review the validity of medical causation. So why do we ask courts to perform these analyses in highly specialized fields from acoustics to zoology? According to JuriLytics LLC co-founders Amit Lakhani and David Faigman (acting chancellor and dean of UC Hastings College of the Law), litigators can now help courts with unbiased science, and in the process, better serve clients.

DRI: Measuring the Expertise in Expert Opinion

Measuring expert testimony with peer review

The Defense Reseach Institute's monthly magazine For the Defense recently featured an article written by Professor David Faigman and Dr. Amit Lakhani entitled "Measuring the Expertise in Expert Opinion." The article describes that many of the risks in using expert witnesses stem from the lack of credibility when fighting the "battle of the experts." The article goes on to describe a solution whereby litigators can offer judges unbiased and neutral science to help gain an advantage using peer review.