Expert Witness Blog

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers says a judge erred in barring a defense expert witness while allowing two similar experts for the prosecution in the criminal conviction of Qwest Communications chief Joe Nacchio. The NACDL said the judge’s decision allowed government experts to be “effectively unchallenged.” CNNMoney.com also writes:

Allowing Nacchio’s conviction to stand would ‘create an uneven playing field, especially in complex criminal trials such as white-collar cases, in which experts are increasingly important,’ according to the document.

Barbara Bergman, a University of New Mexico law professor and president of the group, said the expert was Daniel Fischel, corporate law expert witness, who was to testify about Qwest’s guidance and its impact on the financial markets during 2000 and 2001.

Dr. Charles Yancey is suing the American Academy of Ophthalmology and two doctors who filed a complaint against him for allegedly giving inaccurate testimony. Ophthalmology expert witness Dr. Yancey claims all three conspired to defame and intimidate him so he wouldn’t testify in other cases, according to the lawsuit filed in July. American Medical News reports:

It was the first time Dr. Yancey had served as a medical expert witness, and “he felt an ethical obligation to step forward and do this,” his lawyer, Michael A. Zimmer, said. But the fact that Dr. Yancey received the faxed letter the day before his deposition in a subsequent trial on damages in the case, “was clear evidence that this complaint was filed … to try to get him to alter his testimony,” said Zimmer, who practices in Minneapolis.

Former OK state Sen. Gene Stipe’s mental competence could have significant ramifications beyond an effort to revoke his probation. A recent indictment against him on new charges also could be affected. Stipe’s competence is being questioned after a federal judge said Monday that a prison psychologist found Stipe to be incompetent.
NewsOK.com also writes:

U.S. District Judge Ronald White made the statement during a 20-minute hearing on a defense motion to delay the octogenarian’s mental competency hearing. Stipe’s lead attorney, Clark Brewster, requested the hearing, saying he received Dr. Robert Denney’s report on Stipe only last week. Brewster said that didn’t give him ample time to study it and find expert witnesses who might possibly challenge the report’s conclusions.

Bristol University’s Institute of Child Life and Health is releasing a study this week which found that 9 out of 10 mothers whose babies suffered SIDS smoked during pregnancy. The study says women who smoke during pregnancy are four times more likely than non-smokers to see their child fall victim to SIDS. Ms. Angela Cannings, from Salisbury in Wiltshire, maintained her babies died from SIDS but was jailed for life in April 2002 after she was found guilty of smothering her two sons. At her appeal, Professor Robert Carpenter, a medical expert witness specializing in statistics, said the babies had been at a “substantially increased risk” of SIDS because they may have been exposed to cigarette smoke. The Independent also writes:

The comprehensive report will make a strong case for the Government to increase the scope of anti-smoking legislation. It even suggests a possible move to try to ban pregnant women from getting tobacco altogether. The study, produced by Bristol University’s Institute of Child Life and Health, is based on analysis of the evidence of 21 international studies on smoking and cot death. The report, co-authored by Peter Fleming, professor of infant health and developmental physiology, and Dr. Peter Blair, senior research fellow, will be published this week in the medical journal Early Human Development.

Scientists are working to the theory that exposure to smoke during the pregnancy or just after birth has an effect on brain chemicals in the foetus or in infants, increasing the risk of SIDS.

Maine’s Public Advocate Office has proposed conditions for a deal in which Fairpoint would acquire Verizon’s northern New England landline business. The 23 conditions were developed based on the examination by Public Advocate attorneys, their four expert witnesses, and thousands of pages of documents, and testimony in the case. Telecommunications expert witnesses testified in the telephone utility acquisition case where PUC attorneys said “The risks presented by this case are enormous, and all potential adverse impacts must be addressed now.” Seacoast Online also reports:

A key element of the Public Advocate’s recommendations requires a restructuring of the agreement between Fairpoint and Verizon so that Verizon, in effect, is paid a lower price. That change would allow Fairpoint to operate with less debt. ‘Because, under Maine law, Verizon does not have the right to abandon service without the commission’s approval, the Public Advocate believes it is appropriate for the commission to require Verizon to lower its price in order to ensure Fairpoint’s long-term financial viability. Without a significant reduction in the price, this proposal will not work for Maine’s residential and small business customers,’ Davies emphasized. If Fairpoint and Verizon are unable or unwilling to perform on all of these recommended conditions, the Public Advocate will recommend that the transaction be rejected by the PUC.

Stewart Dimmock accused the British government of “brainwashing” children by requiring that Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth be shown in schools. A judge in Britain’s High Court has ruled in the case that Gore’s apocalyptic movie on climate change should come with a warning that it promotes “partisan political views” and is riddled with errors. The government’s environmental expert witnesses found that many of the movie’s “facts” are incorrect. For example, Gore portrays the ice cover in Antarctica as melting when in fact it is increasing according to expert witnesses. Judge Michael Burton did not ban the movie but ordered the government to rewrite its guidelines to highlight the movie’s falsehoods. Canada.com writes more on Gore’s portrayal of the environment.

Gore’s claim: A retreating glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania is evidence of global warming. Finding: The government’s expert witness conceded this was not correct.

Gore: Ice core samples prove that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused temperature increases. Finding: Rises in carbon dioxide actually lagged behind temperature increases by 800-2000 years.

Expert witnesses, including Dr. Jay Shapiro, a cardiologist from Los Angeles, testified Wednesday in the civil suit filed against Kentucky doctor Mathew Shotwell. The late Peggy Bellamy and her sister Jacqueline Hopkins allege that 49-year-old Donald Bellamy died as a result of Shotwell’s “acts of negligence and gross negligence.” Mr. Bellamy died of a ruptured pseudoaneurysum, ultimately bleeding to death. The Ledger Independent also reports:

Plaintiffs seek compensation for medical expenses, funeral expenses, pain, suffering and lost wages. Life expectancy expert witness Dr. Edward Berla of a Lexington consultant firm testified regarding Donald Bellamy’s work life expectancy based on his record of continuous employment and other factors. Economist expert witness Dr. Ronald Missun testified regarding Donald Bellamy’s expected earnings based on his work life expectancy. He determined the minimum earnings to be more than $616,000, and topping out around $975,000, considering benefits, raises and other factors.

Massey Energy Co. hopes to reverse the 2002 $76 million judgment against them by arguing that a Virginia lawsuit previously addressed the underlying coal contract dispute. Massey attorney D.C. Offutt said the Virginia case, which ended in 2001 with a $6 million judgment in favor of Harman Mining Co., should have precluded its Boone County lawsuit. Offutt alleges bias by Lincoln County Circuit Judge Jay Hoke saying that Hoke appeared to aid Harman by cross-examining several of its expert witnesses. Offutt also argues that Hoke wrongly excluded a Massey coal expert witness. Chron.com also writes:

‘I think he interjected himself too much in this case and became an advocate,’ Offutt said. ‘If you look at his questioning, I don’t think it was impartial. I think it in many ways helped the plaintiffs.’ Justice Robin Davis asked Harman’s lawyer about Hoke’s conduct. She cited a recent Supreme Court ruling that reversed a case because of a judge’s questioning from the bench. ‘I think the question there is whether the judge engaged in rehabilitating witnesses,’ Justice Joseph Albright said at one point. ‘I think Justice Davis’ question is fair in that regard.’