Here's something to consider when hiring an expert who may eventually testify in court for your case:
"That an expert testifies based on research he has conducted independent of the litigation provides important, objective proof that the research comports with the dictates of good science. For one thing, experts whose findings flow from existing research are less likely to have been biased toward a particular conclusion by the promise of remuneration; when an expert prepares reports and findings before being hired as a witness, that record will limit the degree to which he can tailor his testimony to serve a party's interests. Then, too, independent research carries its own indicia of reliability, as it is conducted, so to speak, in the usual course of business
and must normally satisfy a variety of standards to attract funding and institutional support. Finally, there is usually a limited number of scientists actively conducting research on the very subject that is germane to a particular case, which provides a natural constraint on parties' ability to shop for experts who will come to the desired conclusion."
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995)
Enjoy.
This blog is no longer active and is maintained for archival purposes. It served as a resource and platform for sharing insights into forensic multimedia and digital forensics. Whilst the content remains accessible for historical reference, please note that methods, tools, and perspectives may have evolved since publication. For my current thoughts, writings, and projects, visit AutSide.Substack.com. Thank you for visiting and exploring this archive.
Featured Post
Welcome to the Forensic Multimedia Analysis blog (formerly the Forensic Photoshop blog). With the latest developments in the analysis of m...
No comments:
Post a Comment