1 / 46

The Houston Bar Association Juvenile Law Section Eighth Annual Juvenile Law Conference

The Houston Bar Association Juvenile Law Section Eighth Annual Juvenile Law Conference Houston, Texas September 15, 2018 EXPERT TESTIMONY Admissibility in Juvenile Proceedings Terrance Windham Attorney at Law Houston, Texas. EXPERT TESTIMONY: TOPICS. ADMISSIBILITY STANDARDS.

lord
Download Presentation

The Houston Bar Association Juvenile Law Section Eighth Annual Juvenile Law Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Houston Bar Association Juvenile Law Section Eighth Annual Juvenile Law Conference Houston, Texas September 15, 2018 EXPERT TESTIMONY Admissibilityin Juvenile Proceedings Terrance Windham Attorney at Law Houston, Texas

  2. EXPERT TESTIMONY: TOPICS ADMISSIBILITY STANDARDS • THE FEDERAL APPROACH • Pre-Daubert • Daubert & Its Progeny • THE TEXAS APPROACH • Pre-Kelly • Kelly • Robinson • Nenno

  3. EXPERT TESTIMONY: TOPICS ADMISSIBILITY STANDARDS • DISCOVERY RULES FOR EXPERT WITNESSES • CHALLENGING EXPERT TESTIMONY (PRACTICAL TIPS)

  4. KEY LEGAL SOURCES • Federal & Texas Rules of Evidence • Rule 104(a) • Rules 401, 402, and 403 • Rule 702 [and corollary FRE 702] • Court Decisions • United Supreme Court • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals • Texas Supreme Court

  5. THE PRIMARY RULES Federal Rule 702 Texas Rule 702 A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of factto understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of factto understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.

  6. Expert Testimony • Both FRE 702 & TRE 702 – • Allow a witness, qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, • To give opinion testimony based upon scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge • If it will assist the trier of fact—the jury

  7. Expert Testimony THE FEDERAL APPROACH

  8. FEDERAL HISTORICAL REVIEW • 1920’s - ____ • Frye Standard followed • 1975 • Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) • But , federal courts still followed “Frye” • 1993 • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993) • Supreme Court held FRE created a new admissibility standard based on FRE Rule 702

  9. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (Broken Down) • If … scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge • will assist the trier of fact • to understand the evidence OR • to determine a fact in issue • a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, • may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

  10. EXPERT TESTIMONY Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals United States Supreme Court - 1993 • Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 702 established new standard for admissibility of expert testimony based on • Reliability • and • Relevance

  11. New Rule 702 Standard (Daubert) Reliability Is the reasoning or methodology underlying the proffered expert testimony scientifically valid? Relevance Can the reasoning or methodology be properly applied to the facts of the case? Will the expert testimony assist the trier of fact? The “Daubert test”

  12. EXPERT TESTIMONY Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals United States Supreme Court - 1993 • Factors to aid trial judges in making this “preliminary assessment” of reliability and relevance (i.e., admissibility) under Rule 702: • Scientific knowledge HOW ARE THESE TO BE DETERMINED? • Peer review and publication • Known or potential rate of error • Generally acceptance • These four factors are not exclusive.

  13. EXPERT TESTIMONY Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals United States Supreme Court - 1993 • Federal trial judges as the “Gatekeepers” of expert testimony. • Qualifications • Reliability • Relevancy - Assist the trier of fact - Sufficiently tied to the facts of the case • Rule 104 (a) • Trial judge must make this these determinations as a preliminary matter prior to admission of the evidence before the trier of fact.

  14. EXPERT TESTIMONY Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals United States Supreme Court - 1993 “Daubert Hearing”: The Burden of Persuasion • The offering party • Preponderance of the evidence • reliable • relevant

  15. Daubert’s Progeny • General Electric Co. v. Joiner • Trial judge discretion in evaluating reliability • Standard of review of decisions regarding admissibility of expert • testimony is “abuse of discretion”. • Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael • Daubert reliability test is “flexible” and applies not just scientific • experts, but to allRule 702 experts. • No distinction between scientific and • nonscientific expertise. • Amplified “Gatekeeking:” role of the trial judge

  16. Expert Testimony THE TEXAS APPROACH

  17. TEXAS HISTORICAL REVIEW • Pre-Texas Rules of Evidence • Texas Courts essentially followed Frye • 1980’s • Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence adopted • Patterned on FRE • Texas Courts continued to follow Frye • 1990’s • Kelly • Robinson • Nenno

  18. TEXAS HISTORICAL REVIEW • 1992 • Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. Crim.App. 1992) - Predates Daubert, • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that TRE Rule 702 created new admissibility standard

  19. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Kelly v. State, 824 .W,2 d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) The Kelly Doctrine • Rule 702: The threshold admissibility test • Expert testimony will be of assistance to the trier of fact. • In order to assist the trier of fact, the expert testimony must be reliable and relevant.

  20. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Kelly v. State, 824 .W,2 d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) The Kelly Criteria • To be sufficiently reliable and relevant to help the jury, expert testimony must meet three criteria: • The underlying scientific theory must be valid; • The technique applying the theory must be valid; and • The technique must be properly applied on the occasion in question. • For the first two criteria – judicial notice possible!

  21. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Scientific Reliability Factors • Accepted by scientific community • Existence of literature (peer review) • Clarity of explanation • Potential rate of error • Availability of other experts • Qualifications, experience, and skill

  22. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2 d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) The Rule 403 Analysis • Even reliable and relevant expert testimony may be unhelpful if: • It is merely cumulative; • It would confuse or mislead the jury; • It would consume an inordinate amount of trial time. • Trial judge determines whether the testimony passes the benchmark of Rule 403.

  23. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2 d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) The “Kelly (Gatekeeper) Hearing” • Rule 104 (a) • Trial judge must make these determinations as a preliminary matterprior to admission of the evidence before the trier of fact.

  24. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) The “Kelly (Gatekeeper) Hearing” • The Burden of Persuasion • The party offering scientific expert testimony must persuade the • trial judge, by clear and convincing evidence, that the testimony • rests on a solid scientific foundation (i.e., is reliable); and will • assist the fact finder. • If the evidence is reliable, then it’s relevant. • The Standard of Review • Appellate courts would review decisions of • trial judges under an “abuse of discretion” • standard.

  25. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) • Trial Judge as “Gatekeeper” • Clear and Convincing Evidence • Reliable • Reliable scientific foundation • Relevant • Assist the trier of fact • Sufficiently tied to the facts of the case

  26. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Civil Cases E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson Texas Supreme Court - 1995

  27. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson Texas Supreme Court - 1995 • Texas Supreme Court acknowledged the “Kelly” standard for determining reliability of expert testimony in civil cases pursuant to Texas Rules of Evidence – Rule 702 and Rule 104 (a). • Insightful Observations by the Texas Supreme Court • The proliferation of expert testimony. • Impact of expert testimony on juries.

  28. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach The Role of the Trial Judge E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson Texas Supreme Court - 1995 • Trial judges have a heightened responsibility • to ensure that expert testimony is based on a reliable foundation and • is relevant to the issues in the case. • to make sure that speculative and unreliable expert testimony does • not reach the jury under the veil of reliability that is generally • associated with the label “expert testimony”.

  29. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Role of the Trial Judge E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson Texas Supreme Court - 1995 • Gatekeeper role (and reliability analysis) is not intended to supplant the adversary system or invade the province of the jury. • Trial judge may not exclude an expert because he believes one expert is more persuasive than another expert. • Not the role of the trial court to make ultimate conclusions as to the persuasiveness of the proffered evidence.

  30. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson Texas Supreme Court - 1995 The Robinson Reliability Factors • The extent to which the theory has been or can be tested • The extent to which the technique relies on the expert’s own subjective interpretation • Whether technique has been peer reviewed and/or published • The potential rate of error of the technique • Accepted by relevant scientific community • The non-judicial uses which have been made of the theory or technique.

  31. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach The Role of the Trial Judge E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson Texas Supreme Court - 1995 • Trial courts may consider other factors which are helpful to • determining the reliability of the scientific evidence. • Different factors for different cases. • The standard of review: “Abuse of Discretion”. • Test for abuse of discretion: whether the trial court acted • withoutreference to any guiding principles in making the • decision regarding admissibility of the evidence. • The Rule 403 analysis.

  32. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Admissibility of Non-scientific Expert Evidence Nenno v. State Texas Court of Criminal Appeals - 1998

  33. Texas Rule of Evidence 702 If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

  34. Nenno v. State Texas Court of Criminal Appeals - 1998 • Modified the application of the Kelly criteria for non-scientific expert evidence (the “soft” sciences). • Key Rule 702 language: “… a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” • Psychology • Economics • Political science • Sociology • When assessing the reliability of expert testimony concerning a “soft-science” subject, the Kelly requirement of reliability applies, but with less vigor than to the “hard” sciences.

  35. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Nenno v. State Texas Court of Criminal Appeals – 1998 The Nenno Reliability Questions for “Soft” Sciences • Whether the field of expertise is legitimate? • Whether the subject matter of the expert’s testimony is within the scope of the field? AND • Whether the expert’s testimony properly relies upon and/or utilizes the principles in the field?

  36. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Discovery in Juvenile Cases TFC, Section 51.17(b) • Discovery in a proceeding under this title is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and by case decisions in criminal cases. TCCP, Article 39.14(b) (b) On a party’s request made not later than the 30th day before the date that jury selection in the trial is scheduled to begin, or in a trial without a jury, the presentation of evidence is scheduled to begin, the party receiving the request shall disclose to the requesting party the name and address of each person the disclosing party may use at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, and 705, Texas Rules of Evidence. Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, the disclosure must be made in writing in hard copy form or by electronic means not later than the 20th day before the date that jury selection in the trial is scheduled to begin, or in a trial without a jury, the presentation of evidence is scheduled to begin. On motion of a party and on notice to the other parties, the court may order an earlier time at which one or more of the other parties must make the disclosure to the requesting party.

  37. Expert Testimony: The Texas Approach Discovery in Juvenile Cases • Expert discovery triggered by request – not a formal motion. • Written request • Electronic requests • Requires request to be made 30 days before trial. • Requires disclosure in writing (either hard copy or electronically) not later than 20 days before trial. • Grants the court discretion to order earlier discovery on motion of a party. • Changes apply to discovery of experts in the trial of an offense committed on or after September 1, 2015.

  38. CHALLENGING EXPERT TESTIMONY • To challenge a party’s designation of expert witnesses: • File written Notice of Objection and Request for a “Kelly/Daubert [Gatekeeper] Hearing”. • Remember, once a party opposing expert testimony objects, the proponent bears the burden of demonstrating the admissibility of the testimony. • Obtain a hearing date and ask trial judge to sign order setting the hearing. • Comply: Texas Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 21(b) regarding service and notice of the hearing on the other party.

  39. CHALLENGING EXPERT TESTIMONY Getting prepared for the Kelly (Gatekeeper) Hearing • Research credentials of opposing party’s expert(s). • Research subject matter of testimony, underlying theory and technique. • Run a computerized West Law or Lexis search using the expert’s name. • Run an internet search (using, e.g., yahoo.com or google.com) using the expert’s name and field of expertise. • Locate the expert’s web site or any mention of the expert on the internet.

  40. CHALLENGING EXPERT TESTIMONY Getting prepared for the Kelly (Gatekeeper) Hearing • At the hearing cross-examine the proponent’s [opposing party] expert(s) using the threshold factors delineated in Kelly, Daubert, and Robinson. • At the hearing, ask the expert what is his/her field of expertise. • Ask what specific expert opinion he/she will be offering. • Ask what specific information is available to show that this field or expertise is accepted or discredited. • Ask what specific facts or data have been made available to the expert to support or contradict his/her opinion. Use the “Gatekeeper” Hearing to limit scope of expert’s testimony.

  41. CHALLENGING EXPERT TESTIMONY Use the Gatekeeper Hearing to Limit Scope of Expert’s Testimony • For “hard” science expert testimony, be prepared to cross-examine your opponent’s expert witness on the following topics: • the expert witness’ credentials; • the following Kelly factors: - the validity of the underlying scientific theory; - the validity of the technique applying the theory; and - the proper application of the technique in connection with the case you’re trying • Don’t forget Kelly’s seven non-exclusive factors that • the trial court may consider in determining reliability

  42. CHALLENGING EXPERT TESTIMONY Use the Gatekeeper Hearing to Limit Scope of Expert’s Testimony • For “soft” science expert testimony, be prepared to cross-examine your opponent’s expert witness on the following topics: • the Nenno factors: • the legitimacy of the field of expertise; • the scope of the subject matter of the expert’s testimony within the field of expertise; and • the proper reliance or utilization by the expert witness of the principles involved in the field. • Again, use the “Gatekeeper Hearing” to limit the scope of expert’s testimony.

  43. WHAT’S CLEAR IN TEXAS • Whether it’s a criminal or a civil case, when expert testimony is proffered, the Kelly/Daubert standard of admissibility [“reliability” and “relevance”]will be followed. • That standard it is to be applied to ALL “expert” testimony whether it involves scientific or non-scientific evidence. • The rules regarding discovery of expert witnesses have been modified to bring this facet of discovery into harmony with the Michael Morton Act.

  44. WHAT’S CLEAR IN TEXAS When it comes to admissibility of “expert testimony”, the trial judge is the Gatekeeper; has enormous discretion; and absent an abuse of discretion, his rulings will always be upheld.

  45. 9,999,999

  46. THE END

More Related