While the error relating to
the flawed expert testimony can not be swept aside as harmless, the evidence establishing the appellant's guilty knowledge — and thus his guilt — is overwhelming.
Not exact matches
We... disavow the suggestion in Visa Check that an
expert's
testimony may establish a component of a Rule 23 requirement simply by being not fatally
flawed.
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 ``.
Finding: «The presence of opposing
expert testimony caused jurors to be skeptical of all
expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to
flaws in the other
expert's
testimony... Thus, contrary to the assumptions in the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert, opposing
expert testimony may not be an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom.»