Articles Posted in Expert Witness News

In Strategic Security Management: A Risk Assessment Guide for Decision Makers, security expert witness Karim H. Vellani writes in his introduction:

While researching this book, I sought out the wisdom of others and came across a quote by William O. Douglas which I think captures the essence of Strategic Security Management: “Security can only be achieved through constant change, through discarding old ideas that have outlived their usefulness and adapting others to current facts.” I think that pretty well sums up the intent of this book.

Vellani is President of Threat Analysis Group, LLC.

Wikipedia tells us that “forensic engineering is the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate/function as intended, causing personal injury for example. In Industry Standards, Technology Associates, the forensic engineering expert witness company has this to say on industry standards.

Because custom and practice is (by definition) something that is actually in existence, and is therefore accepted, there is an understandable tendency to consider it “acceptable.” This conclusion is not automatically justified, however, for two reasons. First, custom and practice within a given industry generally varies over a wide range, from bad to good, from unsafe to safe. For example, although many punch presses are fitted with two-hand controls to prevent the operator from having either hand in the dangerous area as the ram of the press descends, it is common for the operator-or his employer-to “tie down” one of the controls so that the press can be operated with only one hand, leaving the other hand free to inadvertently enter the dangerous area as the ram descends. (The reason for this dangerous practice is that it speeds up production.) Thus, this form of custom and practice is not acceptable as an industry standard. It follows that only good custom and practice should be used as an industry standard.

In Machine Guarding: The Second Alternative, equipment expert witness Albert Rauck, P.E., CSP, writes on machinery safety devices:

The second alternative can, when used in conjunction with the design consideration, be very effective in eliminating the dangerous condition. Safety devices include the whole range of machine guarding techniques such as fixed or automatic mechanical guards, safety mats, light curtains, safety gates, machine interlocks etc. Care must be taken to assure that machines guards are not removed for maintenance and not reinstalled or the guards are not defeated by workers in an effort to speed up the process.

The third alternative should be employed when the first and second alternatives cannot be used to eliminate the dangerous condition. The provision of warning devices should alert the exposed people to the specific danger and be consistently applied. These devices include signage, warning alarms (horns and lights), warning strips and ropes etc.

Wikipedia tells us that “forensic engineering is the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate/function as intended, causing personal injury for example. In Industry Standards, Technology Associates, the forensic engineering expert witness company has this to say on industry standards.

A standard can be defined as a document issued by a recognized agency, and dealing with design and/or safety requirements relating to a specific product or type of activity. Such agencies include the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (051-IA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). OSHA standards are generally legally binding for an employer, while ANSI standards are generally of an advisory nature. The term “industry standard,” however, is ordinarily taken to have a broader meaning, including formal standards as just defined, and also including designs and procedures not required in formal standards, though prevailing in a specific industry, and which represent generally accepted custom and practice.

In Machine Guarding: The Second Alternative, equipment expert witness Albert Rauck, P.E., CSP, writes on machinery safety devices:

The first thought should be given to the design of the process. Remember the danger results from the combination of hazard and exposure. Eliminate either one and the dangerous condition no longer exists. Is it possible to eliminate the human from the process through automation? Can the operator be relocated to a safer position? Can the process be changed to eliminate the hazard? Obviously the ideal time to make these decisions is during the design of the process but other opportune times are during a renovation, machine rebuild etc. Often it is not possible to completely design out the dangerous condition but it is possible to greatly reduce the risk to a more acceptable level. The reason that this is the highest priority is that it eliminates the dangerous condition whereas the other alternatives do not.

In Finding a Remedy For Renters, security expert witness John a. Harris writes:

In most inadequate-security suits, then, the first step in establishing foreseeability is to examine the criminal history of the property. Review reports of calls for police service to find how many residents reported crimes on the premises and in the immediate vicinity, when and where those crimes occurred, and their similarity or other relationship to the crime involving your client. Reported burglaries are important because future burglaries may lead to assaults against people in the apartment.”

After examining the calls for service, obtain police incident reports for those that appear most pertinent. Police reports will yield more detail, including a narrative by the responding officer.

DNA expert witness Dan E. Krane of Forensic Bioinformatics, Inc. on scientific evidence:

What makes scientific evidence so powerful in court is very simple: it’s supposed to be scientific. That means that it is supposed to be objective and completely independent of the subject of an investigation (a suspect or a defendant). It is therefore absolutely shocking that DNA testing laboratories routinely put themselves in a situation where specific information about a subject’s DNA profile might influence their interpretation of an evidence sample.

Last December, eleven prominent experts from around the US and even Scotland met in Washington, DC to discuss the problem of examiner bias/context effect in DNA profiling. Given the breadth of expertise and roles of these experts it surprised many of us that we were able to not only agree about the magnitude and nature of the problem, but also to a solution. The result was the generation of a position paper that has been published in this month’s Journal of Forensic Sciences.

In Finding a Remedy For Renters, security expert witness John a. Harris writes:

When crime occurs in a residential apartment building, a security expert witness can help you evaluate whether the victim has a viable case against the property owner… Security is one of the foremost problems facing apartment-community owners because apartments have become prime targets for criminals in recent years. Criminals are often drawn to a particular property because they know the owner has not taken adequate security measures. Owners may give security a low priority, choosing instead to focus on “curb appeal”amenities such as landscaping, tennis courts, gyms, and swimming pools to attract and retain tenants…

Residents are often transient and thus less likely to know one another, visitors and delivery persons come and go at odd hours, and organizations such as Community Watch are more difficult to sustain because residents are not permanent. Frequently, young residents are living away from home for the first time and are naive about the possibility of crime. Also, residents may assume, often incorrectly, that the owner is providing adequate security because the property appears well maintained, well lit, and secure with gates and fences-and because the leasing agent indicated to the residents that the property was safe when they signed the lease. Despite these challenges, landlords must make security issues a top priority.

In So when do we get it over with and declare Google a monopoly?, Charles Cooper on CNet.com quotes antitrust expert witness Richard Schmalensee, of MIT’s Sloan School of Management.

‘There are the standard numbers people throw around but I think most people would say you have to decide whether search ad is a market for antitrust proposes. If it is, that’s a high enough share. But you also have to look at issues of entry and issues of fragility. How stable is that share and how intense is that market,’ Schmalensee said.

‘There’s no magic threshold but with high share levels, you get to be concerned,’ he continued. ‘On the other hand, monopolists are allowed to compete. The question is whether the arrangement would stifle competition.’

PointofLaw.com on expert witness reform:

It’s not as if the Bayou State regularly produces good news on lawsuit reform, but a new measure applauded by Fred Shumate, executive director of Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch, sounds like an exception: S.B. 308 “would establish a uniform system for eliminating ‘junk science’ and nonexpert witnesses from the courtroom. … This legislation is similar to laws passed recently in Georgia, Mississippi and Michigan, and is already being called a model for possible legislation in West Virginia.”