Expert witness testimony: A trial judge's perspective

Our plain-English summary of Expert witness testimony: A trial judge's perspective, by J.B. Weinstein (Neurologic Clinics, 1999).

The study

• Author: J.B. Weinstein
• Journal: Neurologic Clinics
• Published: 1999;17(2):355-62
• Type of article: Review
• Cited by: 10 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

This article discusses the use of expert, scientific testimony in Judge Weinstein's courtroom cases that involved Agent Orange, silicone breast implants, repetitive stress injuries, diethylstilbestrol (DES), and asbestos. The author summarizes the evidentiary standards for admitting expert, scientific testimony, and discusses some of the unique ethical and logistical issues presented by such evidence. Advice is offered for prospective expert witnesses. Possible solutions to the problems the legal and scientific communities face in balancing society's need for expert evidence and its limitations are addressed.

In plain English

This article was not a scientific study. It was a commentary by a federal trial judge, drawing on the author's courtroom experience with expert witnesses. Asbestos appeared only once, in a list of litigation on the author's docket alongside silicone breast implants, repetitive stress injuries, diethylstilbestrol (DES) and tobacco. The article reported no asbestos data. The author explained that under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 the trial judge acts as a gatekeeper, deciding whether expert testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant. The author's practice was to give witnesses with decent credentials and some basis in the literature the benefit of the doubt. Even so, the author had rejected evidence in the Agent Orange local case and on systemic problems in breast implant cases. The author argued that experts should not act as advocates, should express doubt where it exists, and may not testify to ultimate legal conclusions. The author called for professional societies to police testifying members and for scientific panels that courts could call on. The author concluded that the judiciary and the medical and scientific communities, working together, could do more for responsible fact finding.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: commentary (opinion article) by a federal trial judge on expert witness testimony; not a research study and reports no data
• Who was studied: no study population; the author drew on experience with expert witnesses in the author's own cases in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
• Exposure: no exposure was studied; asbestos is mentioned only as one type of litigation on the author's docket
• Main results:
  • The author described the Rule 702 standard: the judge decides whether an expert's proposed testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant
  • The author's stated practice was to give witnesses with decent credentials and some basis in the literature the benefit of the doubt
  • The author had rejected proffered testimony in the Agent Orange local case, and in the breast implant cases allowed testimony only about injuries
  • The author argued that the lawyer, not the expert, is the advocate
  • The author stated that experts may not testify about ultimate legal conclusions
  • The author argued that proper expert testimony includes expressions of doubt
  • The author proposed that professional societies police members who testify
  • The author proposed scientific panels that courts can call on, and pro bono panels for people of modest means
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that courts cannot be certain of absolute truth, but that the judiciary and the medical and scientific communities working together can do more to provide responsible fact finding
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author noted that the neurologists observed in the author's trials were chosen for outstanding credentials and were perhaps not representative of the profession

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Expert Witness.

Related studies

• The usefulness of expert opinion in medicolegal referrals of malignant mesothelioma — D.L. Dixon, K.M. Griggs, et al. (2013)
• How to Judge Safety Crime: Lessons From the Eternit Asbestos Maxi-Trials — P. Marichalar (2019)
• Mesothelioma and the law — A. Samuels (2015)
• Retrospective cohort study of a microelectronics and business machine facility — S.R. Silver, L.E. Pinkerton, et al. (2014)
• Testimony by otolaryngologists in defense of tobacco companies 2009-2014 — R.K. Jackler (2015)
• The asbestos war — L. Kazan-Allen (2003)

Browse return to medical research.