Pet Writing Peeve of the Day
Spotted twice in as many days.
The official blog of www.daubertontheweb.com
It is with great sadness that I announce the death of Peter Nordberg, author of Blog 702. Obviously there will be no "new" postings on this blog, however, the blog will remain up and running for those of you who wish to read past post and to keep post that are linked from other sites working.
I have been approached by several people since Peter's death asking for permission to "quote from" , "take over', "assume" the blog. So, I decided I should probably post here to say the following.
The writings on this blog, and the name Blog 702, are now the property of the Estate of Peter Nordberg and are NOT "for the taking". I will keep it up on the web for your linking and reading pleasure ... but please do not disrespect my husband (or break the law) by stealing from it. Please see www.daubertontheweb.com for further information about the future of the parent website.
Jones failed to attend the July 6, 2002, meeting.nor, worse still,
Jones failed to attend the July 6, 2002 meeting.but rather
Jones failed to attend the meeting of July 6, 2002.and thereafter
Jones failed to attend the July 6 meeting.Thank you for your attention.
In its brief, the Government inexplicably contends [the statistician] was not an expert because he did not render any expert opinion. Although an expert is permitted to render an opinion, Fed. R. Evid. 703, 704, he is not required to do so, and failure to offer an opinion does not negate an expert's status, see Fed. R. Evid. 702. During the Government's proffer and during his testimony, [the statistician] discussed his specialized training, as well as the methodology he employs in selecting random samples. His specialized knowledge lay outside the province of the jury and rendered him an expert.See United States v. Rosin, No. 06-15538 (11th Cir. Jan. 16, 2008) (Black, Hull, & Fay, JJ.).
Labels: 11th Circuit
Pursuant to Rule 702, testimony from a qualified expert witness is permitted if the opinion will assist the trier of fact, "the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,  the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and  the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." Fed. R. Evid. 702 (emphasis added). Here, the district court determined that [the expert] added nothing more than abstract scientific nostrums. [The expert's] proffered testimony did not apply recognized or accepted principles to [the defendant's] particular circumstances. Instead, it offered only the general proposition that false confessions can occur. See United States v. Alexander, 816 F.2d 164, 169 (5th Cir. 1987) (stressing that trial court's are not required to admit generic expert testimony). Accordingly, even if the district court could have properly admitted the evidence, it was not "manifestly erroneous" to exclude it.See United States v. Dixon, No. 06-31234 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2008) (King, Barksdale, & Dennis, JJ.).
Labels: 5th Circuit
Labels: 7th Circuit
Labels: 9th Circuit
Labels: 8th Circuit