Sentences with phrase «expert testimony defendants»

In accident cases, our lawyers make sure we know what expert testimony defendants are will see at trial.

Not exact matches

So long as experts deal in «hard» knowledge like whether the fibers found on the heels of the defendant's shoes came from the clothing of the victim, their testimony is helpful.

For a defendant in a political corruption case, introducing character testimony can be especially risky at a time when politicians are generally held in low esteem, experts said.

It looks like Ed Clark won't have the opportunity to, in the words of the government's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Defendant's Experts, offer «testimony regarding ideological debate and the environmental effect of catTestimony of Defendant's Experts, offer «testimony regarding ideological debate and the environmental effect of cattestimony regarding ideological debate and the environmental effect of cats.»

Earlier this month, government attorneys filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Defendant's Experts, arguing that «Mr. Clark's proffered testimony regarding ideological debate and the environmental effect of cats has no probative value with respect to the issue before the CourTestimony of Defendant's Experts, arguing that «Mr. Clark's proffered testimony regarding ideological debate and the environmental effect of cats has no probative value with respect to the issue before the Courtestimony regarding ideological debate and the environmental effect of cats has no probative value with respect to the issue before the Court.»

The defendant, Angela Koperski, wants to appeal the trial judge's ruling that prosecutors will be permitted to videotape the testimony of her expert witness using an iPhone.

In order to prove that her medical injuries were a result of the car accident with the defendant, there were medical records and expert testimony entered into the record.

The defendant contested the plaintiff's expert witness by filing a motion in limine to exclude her expert's testimony.

The plaintiffs presented expert testimony that the defendant obstetrician failed to recognize that gestational diabetes and the large size of the baby required a planned cesarean section to avoid this known complication associated with large babies.

The plaintiffs also presented expert testimony that had the defendant delivered the baby by planned cesarean section, he would not have suffered the injuries with which he lives today.

This eventuality leads the plaintiff and sometimes the defendant, in medical malpractice cases particularly, to request that additional experts be allowed to provide opinion testimony.

We provide high quality scientifically based expert accident reconstruction, collision analyses and expert witness testimony to the litigation community on behalf of plaintiff and defendant litigants throughout California and the United States.

The court first finds that proffered testimony by defendant's technical expert regarding possible «design arounds» as alternatives to the patented technology «is wholly speculative and, consequently, not helpful... LEARN MORE

Following a pre-trial conference, a Texas judge rejected on Daubert grounds proposed expert testimony on a reasonable royalty, since that royalty would have been excessive for the defendant.

«Rule 702 does nothing to address the huge gaps in resources between the prosecution and most defendants that severely inhibit defendants» ability to challenge unreliable prosecution expert testimony.»

She demolishes the prosecution's expert testimony (provided by an automotive instructor of forensic studies for the Federal Bureau of Investigation) by explaining how the defendant's car could not have possibly made the tire tracks left by the killer's car.

The defendant was expected to have presented expert medical testimony that the injury was a risk of the procedure and can occur without negligence on the part of the surgeon.

After hearing compelling testimony from Defendants» expert in accident reconstruction and the investigating police officer, the jury found that Plaintiff's own contributory negligence was a cause of the accident, resulting in a defense verdict.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that it was an error for the court to dismiss their defect and negligence claims because the only grounds to grant the motion for summary judgment relied on the trial court granting the defendant's request to exclude the expert's testimony.

Equally important is an attorney's experience and ability to effectively challenge a defendant's expert testimony.

Ultimately, the appellate court determined that the trial court properly admitted the plaintiff's expert witness testimony yet was within its right to assign the evidence little weight and find in favor of the defendant.

Now, I've learned that in a criminal trial where the defendant is alleged to have strangled his wife, but contends that it wasn't he who caused her death but a canine, the court may allow the prosecution to present expert testimony on the possibility of smothering - by - dog.

(c) The trier of fact must consider all of the evidence, including the expert testimony and may conclude on all of the evidence that the injury to the plaintiff was caused by the wrongdoing of the defendant, even if: • None of the experts testifying conclusively states this to be the case; • There is no consensus among the experts as to the respective likelihood of various potential causes of the injury.

The plaintiffs were prepared to present expert testimony that the defendant nurse and nurse midwife were grossly negligent in failing to recognize the dangerous fetal heart rate tracing as a sign of fetal distress.

The Defendants did not challenge his qualifications to give this evidence, however, at the conclusion of the expert's testimony the Defendants brought a motion to rule the testimony inadmissible arguing that the expert's «underlying methodology and science are so flawed that the evidence (does not meet the legal test for admissibility)» and that the expert was «biased and purposely misled the court to assist the plaintiff ``.

To establish this, the plaintiff must present expert testimony about the appropriate standard of care that should have been used when treating the plaintiff, and that the defendant failed to meet the standard.

Most medical issues are not within the common knowledge of the plaintiff or a jury, so an expert's testimony can be critical in helping the jury understand the applicable standard of care, whether the defendant provider failed to meet that standard, causation and damages.

For example, in one study, plaintiffs» use of PowerPoint slides featuring graphs illustrating statistical evidence increased the defendant's perceived responsibility in a civil case, but text slides summarizing expert testimony did not.

The plaintiff put forward evidence in response, including deposition testimony from the defendant's designated representative and his own expert.

Since the plaintiff did not provide notice that the physician who prepared the expert affidavit intended to provide expert testimony at trial, the affidavit was insufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact as to the defendant's lack of requisite skill at trial.

Helpful evidence to meeting this burden might include, defendant's medical history, testimony from the defendant and eyewitnesses, expert medical testimony, and notes and warnings about the normal side effects (and the expected duration of such side effects) of prescription medications.

Indeed, the plaintiff did not identify the physician who prepared the affidavit as an expert who would ultimately provide trial testimony in her initial disclosure, and in interrogatory responses to the defendant, she stated that she «has not yet made any election as to what expert or experts, if any, she intends to use at any hearing or the trial of the case.»

In a case where the primary evidence against the defendant is the identification of an eyewitness, a defendant should be permitted to present expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification, whether or not there is additional corroborative evidence that could weigh in favor of guilt.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's conviction, choosing not to adopt a presumption of admissibility for expert testimony on eyewitness identification evidence.

The defendants would claim that the evidence shown on the photographs would go in as evidence to be considered by the jury without the assistance of an expert witness on the biomechanics or a medical testimony as to the correlation between the impact and the injuries.

The defendants presented expert medical testimony that it was not necessary to suspect the diarrhea was caused by infection, and for that reason, it was not necessary to order a stool culture, administer antibiotics, or postpone chemotherapy.

The Court first reviewed the parties» expert testimony as well as deposition testimony of other witnesses to address defendants» three principal defenses: (1) abandonment / waiver, (2) laches, and (3) defective deposit copy.

In response, the defendant presented its own expert witness to counter the testimony of the plaintiff's experts.

The defendant objected to the admission of the experts» testimony on several grounds, but the trial court allowed the experts» testimony.

During the arbitration of the Daubert Motion, the arbitrator repeatedly asked defendant's expert to explain the scientific basis for his opinion that the plaintiff had advanced ovarian cancer prior to 1999; the defense expert could not do so and the arbitrator allowed plaintiffs» Daubert motion, thereby excluding his testimony.

The plaintiffs were prepared to present expert testimony that the defendant nurse was negligent in failing to provide intrauterine resuscitative measures to assist the baby when the monitor strips became worrisome.

In partially granting the defendant's motion to bar the testimony, the court provides a nice gloss on the required showings for getting expert opinions into evidence in Federal courts.

In this medical malpractice case, a Norfolk Circuit Court agrees with defendant that plaintiff's expert designations of two dentists are insufficient to allow their testimony on the standard of care, but the court will allow plaintiff to amend the expert...

Defendants challenged the severity of plaintiff's injuries only through cross-examination (about possible cosmetic procedures that might lessen the visibility of scars) but they did not offer any expert medical testimony.

As a result of this, the Court decided to reject the Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony and allow the jury to hear the expert's testimony.

The court thus granted the defendant's motion to exclude the expert testimony and denied the plaintiff's motion to exclude the evidence related to the third party.

Today the Court granted certiorari to Harrington v. Richter, an ineffective assistance of counsel case challenging the issuance of habeas corpus relief by the Ninth Circuit based upon counsel's reliance on cross-examination and other methods to create reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt rather than expert - opinion testimony.

The Defendant argued that because the proposed expert testimony was from an expert on floor safety, and not train safety, that his testimony would not be relevant or helpful to the fact finder.

The Defendant here admitted that the proposed expert was an expert in slip and fall accidents and floor safety, but their argument against the admissibility of his testimony was that his floor safety expertise is inapplicable to the proper design of steps located in the interior of a locomotive, as trains are different than buildings or walkways.

1999), the defendant moved to exclude the testimony of an expert offered by the plaintiff to testify about the monetary value of the plaintiff's loss of enjoyment of life.