Lisa Greene, 42, of Midland, NC, could face the death penalty for the death of her two children, Daniel Macemore, 10, and Addison Macemore, 8, in a January 2006 mobile home fire. Greene claims that a candle overturned in her child’s room but Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Special Agent Van Tuley, the prosecution’s fire expert witness, testified that burn patterns and tests taken from Lisa Greene’s home disprove her explanation of the fire. Prosecution witnesses told of a mother who didn’t care about her children and wanted out of the responsibility of parenthood. Josh Lanier of IndependentTribune.com also reports that John Lentini, the defense attorneys’ arson expert witness will take the stand Monday.

Five years ago Rohm & Haas, a chemical company in Montgomery County, PA, alerted employees about a mysterious series of brain cancers. Now Rohm & Haas says its latest study has turned up no problems. But an epidemiology expert witness from Columbia University has concluded that even 12 brain cancer deaths at the Spring House research center “significantly exceeds the expected number.” The expected number is 3.45 cases per 100,000 people, expert witness Richard Neugebauer wrote in his analysis. Philly.com also reports:

He estimated that brain cancer deaths among Spring House workers were at least three times more than expected, and possibly eight times more, depending on the size of the work force.

“Their own panel is saying ‘We don’t think you got all the deaths; something doesn’t look right,’ ” Freiwald said, referring to the critique by the three outside experts. “Epidemiology is a science where it’s very easy to turn it into a shell game.”

In How Attorneys Can Best Utilize Their Medical Expert Witness: A Medical Expert’s Perspective, Dr. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, FRSSAf, FAPA, writes that expert witness testimony depends on finding an appropriate match for your case. This excerpt deals with commitment to an expert.

You also want to ensure that the expert is as adequately prepared as possible for the specific tasks (s)he is assigned to do. This may be testamentary, but very often it is consultative, or writing a declaration, report or letter. This may require adequate educating on the legal aspects of the case. This can sometimes be time consuming particularly if the expert is not experienced or specifically forensically trained. This can easily be more costly than retaining a more expensive, more experienced and knowledgeable expert.

It is necessary at the appropriate time to declare the expert carefully. The exact wording should be discussed carefully with the expert consultant prior to such submissions as it may effect all his / her future testimony. Clearly, adverse opinions on certain issues may limit the expert as to being declared only in the area where (s)he can address the strengths of the case

In How Attorneys Can Best Utilize Their Medical Expert Witness: A Medical Expert’s Perspective, Dr. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, FRSSAf, FAPA, writes that expert witness testimony depends on finding an appropriate match for your case. This excerpt deals with commitment to an expert.

You have retained your expert: The commitment to an expert is made more permanent once the expert is declared or the definite decision is made to declare him / her at an appropriate later time (e.g. when experts need to be made public). You have decided you will proceed with that expert and you need to utilize as many techniques as possible to optimize having that expert.

Clearly, one wants to save the expert time, because that will save the attorney money. But do not make the error of trying a short cut with your key expert. Always ensure (s)he is provided with everything that could possibly be deemed necessary to ensure an adequate educated well-thought out opinion that the other side cannot negate due to not disclosing everything necessary.

In Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Hospitality Industry hospitality expert witness Maurice Robinson writes that the International Society of Hospitality Consultants (ISHC) has facilitated customized dispute resolution training programs to industry experts.

This exercise has resulted in a panel of highly experienced and qualified arbitrators and mediators with extensive experience in dealing with hospitality industry issues – the best of both worlds. Thus, the industry now has a supply of industry experts, the vast majority of them being current or former ISHC members with 10 to 40 years of industry experience – who have been trained and certified as commercial arbitrators, mediators and Issue Review Board members, and who are ready to support the resolution of disputes, from the simplest to the most complex.

A wide variety of complex business and real estate disputes in the hospitality industry are now arbitrated, ranging from the parties’ respective rights and obligations under management contracts and franchise agreements to disputes concerning capital improvements, annual budgets and the calculation of incentive and other fees, to disputes concerning allocation of chain-wide costs, and even the composition of competitive sets.

UMass Dartmouth Professor Brian Glyn Williams was called as a law and legal expert witness in the judicial proceedings to determine the legal status of Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan. Hamdan is being held as an “alien unlawful enemy combatant,” which denies him Geneva Convention rights as prisoner of war. Glyn’s role as an expert witness was to shed light on the military command structure of the Taliban and Al Qaida armies. SouthCoastToday.com also reports:

…Capt. Allred denied Mr. Hamdan’s appeal, in essence ruling that he was neither a member of a full-fledged army such as Dr. Williams described on the stand nor a low-level employee somewhere in the rear.

“In addition, these rulings will not only now provide a basis for Hamdan to appeal any future conviction by the commission, but may also have provided a windfall for other detainees (there are 330 at Guantanamo, in Dr. Williams’ estimate).

UMass Dartmouth Professor Brian Glyn Williams was called as a law and legal expert witness in the judicial proceedings to determine the legal status of Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan. Hamdan is being held as an “alien unlawful enemy combatant,” which denies him Geneva Convention rights as prisoner of war. Glyn’s role as an expert witness was to shed light on the military command structure of the Taliban and Al Qaida armies. SouthCoastToday.com also reports:

The bottom line for him (Williams) is that the Taliban and Al Qaida forces, far from being a loose collection of terrorists, was and is a trained fighting force with old but serviceable weapons, with insignias, uniforms and a command structure. In short, the kinds of things that would qualify it as an army for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions. It was not just conjecture on his part; Dr. Williams has traveled repeatedly to Afghanistan and other parts of the region, and has interviewed captured Al Qaida and Taliban fighters to learn about their command structure, among other things.

Mr. Hamdan, in his view, was far from full-fledged Al Qaida but rather a low-level recruit from Yemen without the education or wealthy background to rise into the elite ranks of those such as Osama bin Laden who masterminded the 911 attacks. If anything, he was part of the army that fought off the Soviets in Afghanistan and has now turned to fighting the U.S. and its allies.

UMass Dartmouth Professor Brian Glyn Williams has been called as a law and legal expert witness in the judicial proceedings to determine the legal status of Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan. Hamdan is being held as an “alien unlawful enemy combatant,” which denies him Geneva Convention rights as prisoner of war. Glyn’s role is to shed light on the military command structure of the Taliban and Al Qaida armies. “As an expert witness I was supposed to be above the fray, to shed some light and personal professional knowledge” into an area that he says is routinely oversimplified, he said. SouthCoastToday.com also reports:

Most people in government and the military, he said, “discovered this zone after 911. Their view is shaped by images of people falling out of buildings on 911,” he said. As a result they have a “reductionist approach” in which every Arab, every person connected with Al Qaida or the Taliban army is considered a terrorist. “If you were caught, you had something to do with 911,” he said.

Excerpted from UMD professor testifies as expert witness at trial of bin Laden’s driver, Steve Urbon, Standard-Times senior correspondent, December 30, 2007.

In How Attorneys Can Best Utilize Their Medical Expert Witness: A Medical Expert’s Perspective, Dr. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, FRSSAf, FAPA, writes that expert witness testimony depends on finding an appropriate match for your case. This excerpt deals with the preliminaries of retaining an expert.

Choosing a medical expert consultant requires critical evaluations of numerous features beyond obvious medical expertise. This is even more so for the key witnesses in a case. Medical experts need to be located, assessed for preliminary suitability, retained and later declared as an expert. The procedure is very active to maximize the value of your medical expert consultant. Once one has decided that a particular expert is the logical one to retain, one has to assess the match of the medical aspects of a case with the expert’s suitability in the context of the opinions (s)he will express. This means that retaining an expert does not mean a commitment to proceed with that expert through the case.

A carefully worded pre-retaining phase may ensue where the attorney very briefly describes the key facts in the case. The expert usually will not be able to express an opinion at that stage. Sometimes, however, I have been able to indicate to attorneys that the particular case does not fall within my experience range or my expertise; and at times, I indicate the converse.

In How Attorneys Can Best Utilize Their Medical Expert Witness: A Medical Expert’s Perspective, Dr. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, FRSSAf, FAPA, writes that expert witness testimony depends on finding an appropriate match for your case. This excerpt deals with credibility of your expert.

Choices are complicated by knowing that a credible expert will express an honest opinion. This may lead to the expert expressing an opinion that is unfavorable to the particular case. However, this may not be a disadvantage. The key is knowing your case’s strengths and limitations.

You should respect your expert’s thoughts. (S)He is generally trying to assist you, and his / her adverse opinion usually is well founded. If the expert’s opinion is entirely adverse, this may be a reason not to declare him / her further and find another expert provided a gray zone of opinion legitimately exists for that issue. On the other hand, it may be a strong clue, unless there are other cogent circumstances, to cut one’s losses and to settle the case or not bring it to trial or even not to file it.