SEAK, Inc. is pleased to present its 17th Annual 2008 National Expert Witness Conference, June 19-20, 2008 on Cape Cod, MA.
Each year we have 300+ expert witnesses of all disciplines who attend the conference.
Expert witnesses from all disciplines and with all levels of experience will benefit from multi-disciplinary advanced techniques. Nationally recognized attorneys, experts, judges, and educators will discuss all aspects of expert witness testimony, ethics, and trial techniques. Conference participants will be presented with practical suggestions for succeeding as expert witnesses. This highly-acclaimed two-day program will include lectures, trial demonstrations, lively question and answer periods, and intensive breakout sessions led by a highly qualified faculty.
Conference registrants will have an opportunity to improve their skills while networking and meeting other professionals in a stimulating and collegial atmosphere. We are proud to present eight preconferences this year including two new preconferences. We are also pleased to provide continental breakfast each day, an hors d’oeuvre reception on June 19 and lunch with faculty each day. Our faculty this year includes four distinguished judges. Our expanded program will permit participants to obtain even more information than in past years. We are very pleased to offer continuing education credits this year.
Click here for additional conference information and to register online.
In addition to the main conference we are also offering 8 preconference workshops:
On June 17th, 2008
Expert Report Writing Workshop
Law School for Expert Witnesses - NEW
How to Become the Go To Expert Witness in Your Field - NEW
On June 18th, 2008
How to Become a Dangerous Expert Witness
How To Start and Build A Successful Expert Witness Practice
Advanced Deposition Skills Workshop
Testifying Skills Workshop
The Biggest Mistakes Experts Make: And How to Avoid Them
I hope you can join us this year! This is the finest expert witness training available.
Will flawed forensic FBI test lead to hundreds of new trials?
For years, the FBI used a technique called comparative bullet-lead analysis to match bullets found at crime scenes to ammo found in a suspect's gun or cartridge box. Only the bureau stopped using the method in 2005 because they were worried it wasn't accurate enough.
Which means hundreds of cases could be opened up for reconsideration, the Washington Post and 60 Minutes report.
The National Academy of Sciences has come out and stated that this technique was deemed “unreliable and potentially misleading” in 2004. The FBI though has not yet made this known to defendants whom were affected by its faulty behavior.
The courts have also not yet been notified of the defective test. The FBI stopped using the technique back in 2005 but after they stopped using it the big problem lies in the fact that they have yet to go back and try to find out where errors were made.
Which means hundreds of cases could be opened up for reconsideration, the Washington Post and 60 Minutes report.
The National Academy of Sciences has come out and stated that this technique was deemed “unreliable and potentially misleading” in 2004. The FBI though has not yet made this known to defendants whom were affected by its faulty behavior.
The courts have also not yet been notified of the defective test. The FBI stopped using the technique back in 2005 but after they stopped using it the big problem lies in the fact that they have yet to go back and try to find out where errors were made.
Judge Recht wrong to exclude neurosurgeon expert witness, Justices say
CHARLESTON - Ohio Circuit Judge Arthur Recht improperly excluded neurosurgeon Peter Sheptak as an expert witness in a trial over a car crash, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has decided.
Recht had ruled that because he could not separate Sheptak's testimony on the cause of the plaintiff's injuries from testimony on his diagnosis of the injuries, he wouldn't allow Sheptak to testify at all. In a Nov. 8 opinion, all five Justices agreed that Recht faced a difficult task in drawing a line between causation and diagnosis, but they ordered him to draw it anyway.
The Justices hold high regard for Recht, a former Supreme Court Justice himself. In this case they reversed him but still showed faith in his judgment. Their decision clears the way for Sheptak to testify for Lambert Jones II, whose Ford Probe rear ended a Lincoln driven by George Naum in 2003. Naum sued Jones, claiming the collision caused a concussion, headaches, dizziness, confusion and memory problems.Jones answered that other accidents or unrelated medical conditions caused those conditions.
Jones hired Sheptak, who had testified as an expert in many cases. Sheptak wrote a letter last year stating that, "... this was an extremely low level impact with no significant discernible damage to either vehicle." "I find it highly unlikely that the patient suffered a concussion during the impact," he wrote. "I also feel it highly unlikely that he struck his head on the roof as he reported to several physicians."This March 29, eight days before a scheduled pretrial hearing, Sheptak repeated his conclusions in a deposition. A day before the hearing Naum's attorney, Jonathan Turak of Moundsville, moved to exclude Sheptak's testimony.
Turak argued that Sheptak could not testify about any change in velocity that Naum experienced because Sheptak was not a biomechanical expert. At the hearing, Recht initially said Sheptak "is not getting knocked out completely."Recht changed his mind while trying to limit Sheptak's testimony to medical conclusions without incorporating his opinions regarding the force of the collision."It's all part of a fabric of his opinions, which include the biomechanical part of the equation, and he's not qualified to do that," Recht said. Recht granted the motion to exclude, finding that neurological issues were "inextricably entwined with biomechanical aspects of which he is not qualified.""It is not possible to demarcate that part of his testimony from the neurosurgery," he said.
For Jones, Thomas Buck and April Wheeler of Wheeling petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition to block enforcement of the exclusion order. The Justices granted the writ in an unsigned opinion.
They agreed that Recht "was absolutely correct to exclude testimony regarding his opinion of the biomechanical components of the underlying civil action.""However, as difficult as it might be to distinguish between Dr. Sheptak's biomechanical opinions and his neurosurgery opinions, such demarcation must be accomplished," they wrote. "Some modified use of the evidence must be achieved to permit the admissible portions of the testimony to be presented to the jury."Dr. Sheptak's testimony must be strictly restricted to medical testimony.
Issues regarding the force of impact must be redirected to experts qualified in accident reconstruction or biomechanics."Dropping a hint to the defense, they wrote, "... some of the difficulties may be addressed by the use of hypothetical questions grounded on evidence admissible from other witnesses possessed of the necessary expertise that Dr. Sheptak clearly lacked."
Recht had ruled that because he could not separate Sheptak's testimony on the cause of the plaintiff's injuries from testimony on his diagnosis of the injuries, he wouldn't allow Sheptak to testify at all. In a Nov. 8 opinion, all five Justices agreed that Recht faced a difficult task in drawing a line between causation and diagnosis, but they ordered him to draw it anyway.
The Justices hold high regard for Recht, a former Supreme Court Justice himself. In this case they reversed him but still showed faith in his judgment. Their decision clears the way for Sheptak to testify for Lambert Jones II, whose Ford Probe rear ended a Lincoln driven by George Naum in 2003. Naum sued Jones, claiming the collision caused a concussion, headaches, dizziness, confusion and memory problems.Jones answered that other accidents or unrelated medical conditions caused those conditions.
Jones hired Sheptak, who had testified as an expert in many cases. Sheptak wrote a letter last year stating that, "... this was an extremely low level impact with no significant discernible damage to either vehicle." "I find it highly unlikely that the patient suffered a concussion during the impact," he wrote. "I also feel it highly unlikely that he struck his head on the roof as he reported to several physicians."This March 29, eight days before a scheduled pretrial hearing, Sheptak repeated his conclusions in a deposition. A day before the hearing Naum's attorney, Jonathan Turak of Moundsville, moved to exclude Sheptak's testimony.
Turak argued that Sheptak could not testify about any change in velocity that Naum experienced because Sheptak was not a biomechanical expert. At the hearing, Recht initially said Sheptak "is not getting knocked out completely."Recht changed his mind while trying to limit Sheptak's testimony to medical conclusions without incorporating his opinions regarding the force of the collision."It's all part of a fabric of his opinions, which include the biomechanical part of the equation, and he's not qualified to do that," Recht said. Recht granted the motion to exclude, finding that neurological issues were "inextricably entwined with biomechanical aspects of which he is not qualified.""It is not possible to demarcate that part of his testimony from the neurosurgery," he said.
For Jones, Thomas Buck and April Wheeler of Wheeling petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition to block enforcement of the exclusion order. The Justices granted the writ in an unsigned opinion.
They agreed that Recht "was absolutely correct to exclude testimony regarding his opinion of the biomechanical components of the underlying civil action.""However, as difficult as it might be to distinguish between Dr. Sheptak's biomechanical opinions and his neurosurgery opinions, such demarcation must be accomplished," they wrote. "Some modified use of the evidence must be achieved to permit the admissible portions of the testimony to be presented to the jury."Dr. Sheptak's testimony must be strictly restricted to medical testimony.
Issues regarding the force of impact must be redirected to experts qualified in accident reconstruction or biomechanics."Dropping a hint to the defense, they wrote, "... some of the difficulties may be addressed by the use of hypothetical questions grounded on evidence admissible from other witnesses possessed of the necessary expertise that Dr. Sheptak clearly lacked."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)