by

After being convicted of premeditated first degree murder, Jeremy Hull took his case to the Minnesota Supreme Court. It’s an automatic appeal and Hull did not waive his right to appeal. Hull, 26, was convicted in 2008 of killing Lewis Wilczek of Little Falls in April 2007, then dismembering, burning and burying Wilczek’s body outside of Foreston. After killing Wilczek, he stole the 21-year-old’s identity. The reason the defense is appealing the case has to do primarily with their belief that the Mille Lacs County District Court should have granted a Frye hearing in regards to expert witness testimony on fingerprinting and handwriting evidence.

A Frye hearing is used to determine whether scientific evidence (produced by an expert witness) is admissible in court. In the 1923 federal Court of Appeals case Frye v. United States, the court held that expert testimony is admissible when the technique or theory it is based on has gained “general acceptance” in the relevant scientific community. In a Frye hearing, the trial court determines whether or not given testimony is, in fact, generally accepted (a Frye hearing is typically called after prosecutors or defense lawyers move to exclude the testimony of an expert witness).

For more, see MilleLacsCountyTimes.com.

by

In Tough Question Requires Equally Tough Answers, hospitality expert witness Steven Belmonte, President and C.E.O., Hospitality Solutions LLC, asks the questions: “Are product upgrades and renovations really needed during hard economic times?”

That’s a question I used to get asked a lot. But, as always, things change-and, obviously, not for the better, at least economically speaking these days. And so the question has changed. In these almost unprecedented hard economic times, the question isn’t so much whether a renovation is needed-rather, it’s whether a renovation is, first, viable and, second, whether it’s a smart thing to do.

This is a question you absolutely must ask yourself, especially in this incredibly tough financial environment. As for the answer … well, here’s what I think: There are two answers to this crucial question-and they both add up to an emphatic “Yes!”

by

On his website, aviation expert witness John Ogle, MD, MPH, FACEP, lists FAA medical questions regarding a pilot applicant’s medical history and information on how the FAA considers any problems with respect to flight safety. Here are13-24:

Medical History 13. Mental disorders of any sort; depression, anxiety, etc. (More…)

14. Substance dependence; or failed a drug test ever; or substance abuse or use of illegal substance in the last 2 years (More…)

Continue reading

by

At least 51 witnesses may be called upon by the Park District of La Grange, IL, to provide testimony in an upcoming Cook County Circuit Court hearing in support of its petition to sell 2.82 acres of Gordon Park to developer Atlantic Realty Partners. Experts named in the document include real estate valuation expert witness Patricia L. McGarr and real estate expert witness Brian L. Paupore, both of Integra Realty Resources. Witnesses recognized by the court as experts may include opinions in their testimony where appropriate, whereas other witnesses may only speak to the factual nature of any evidence presented.

The Park District reserved the right to add additional witnesses at a later date. Judge Susan Fox Gillis has not yet set a date for the presentation of testimony, but the next status hearing is scheduled for Feb. 19.

For more, see http://everythinglagrange.typepad.com.

by

In Product Experience or Expert Experience?, patent infringement expert witness James G. Rice writes:

Because patent litigation is one of the more complex areas of litigation, the expert witness is susceptible to making a critical mistake, for example, during a deposition. From my own experience, it appears that patent litigation is the foremost area of litigation in which technical issues can be strongly interwoven with legal issues. This can lead to the situation during a deposition where what may appear on the surface to be a relatively straight forward technical question can have critical underlying legal implications. I recall being asked during a deposition if a particular element of a claim was a “method.” The wording of the claim was not entirely clear on this issue and a less experienced witness might have simply answered “yes” and thus inadvertently have testified in effect that the claim was invalid. Although the attorney the expert is working with during preparation for the deposition may be excellent, it is difficult, if not almost impossible, to anticipate all of the avenues the opposing attorney may take during the course of a deposition. This makes it all the more important that the expert have strong experience in patent litigation.

by

In Product Experience or Expert Experience?, patents expert witness James G. Rice writes:

Quite often when I receive an inquiry from an attorney about a new case, the case deals with a product or device that involves a very specialized and narrow area of design and engineering. A typical example of such a device would be a vacuum cleaner. The attorney will state that they are looking for an expert who has specifically worked in this specific segment of industry in the design and engineering of vacuum cleaners. They often will then state that they are having a hard time locating such an expert. The problem of course is that in such a very specialized area, such individuals are not widely available and are also highly unlikely to be working in litigation support. Even further, should the attorney be fortunate enough to find such an individual, it is frequently the case that they are not be willing to participate in litigation support.

by

The trial of Stanley Cole, who is accused of murdering his girlfriend, Jackson State University student Latasha Norman, is set to begin February 8 in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi. The evidence against Stanley Cole at this point includes: (a) he confessed to murdering Natasha Norman; (b) he confessed to placing her in the trunk of his car; and (c) he went out on a date with another woman while Latasha Norman’s corpse was in his trunk. There is DNA evidence that places Latasha Norman’s blood in Stanley Cole’s trunk. Circuit Judge Swan Yerger postponed Cole’s murder trial to make sure pathology expert witness Dr. Steven Hayne will be available to testify.

Source: criminaldefenseblog.net.

by

In All Should Use Greater Care Handling Underwriting Information, insurance customs expert witness Akos Swierkiewicz writes:

Misrepresentations or omissions primarily originate from negligence by the applicant or broker during the course of the obtaining underwriting information and completing the application.

One of the major functions of brokers is to obtain accurate and complete underwriting information, which requires their active involvement in the process of gathering, preparing and communicating such information to the insurers, rather than just being the conduit to pass information from applicants to insurers. Brokers should also take the initiative and explain major provisions or conditions of the policy to applicants to minimize negative surprises when a claim occurs.

by

In All Should Use Greater Care Handling Underwriting Information, insurance practices expert witness Akos Swierkiewicz writes:

One of the tenets of insurance law is that parties to an insurance policy are expected to deal with each other in utmost good faith. Applicants for insurance or their brokers must disclose all relevant underwriting information fully and accurately to prospective insurers. If the application contains any misrepresentation or omits information that could affect the underwriting decision of the insurer, the standard of utmost good faith is not met and the insurer may deny coverage for claims or rescind the policy.

Allegations about misrepresentation or omission usually surface in the course claim investigations by insurers. In many instances the ensuing litigation may result in denial of the claim or rescission of the policy. Even if misrepresentation or omission is not proven, litigation inevitably causes significant delays in claims adjustment and direct and indirect expenses to the parties.

by

Law enforcement agent expert witness Richard Lichten gives an inside view on the causes of jail and prison riots:

It is a fact that to get along in jail or prison, you must stick with your own race. If you are in an area where there is rioting, you must participate to show respect to your race. If you have an opportunity to join in the riot and do not, you run the risk of getting a beating, or being sexually assaulted later on. In one of the large jails I was assigned to, some of the gang leaders would order a beating called, “30 seconds under the stairs.” That means you would be pummeled for 30 seconds under the stairwell in the dorms. Thirty seconds is a very long time to suffer a beating. Look at your watch for 30 seconds and think about how your face can be mashed into pulp in that time. The staff may see what is happening and come to your aid, but it will take at least that long to get back up, open the door, and run to you.