Re: Court says there is no link between Thimerosal and Autism

D. C. Sessions wrote:
In message <9506a0c4-1819-4082-bdf4-70a742768212@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kevysmom wrote:


What kind of Judge would say this? All the family's experts are
professionals in their field.

"In a December ruling, Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Stuart Berger
ruled that none of the family's expert witnesses could testify in the
case, because their research did not meet prevailing scientific
standards."


The judge already showed HIS colors by NOT allowing the family's
EXPERT witnesses to testify.
Was this judge paid off by Pharma? That judge knew how important and
how big this case was, YET he denied EXPERT witnesses??


There is a legal definition of "expert witness" -- the word
to search for is "Daubert." You can't just shop around to
find a Peter Breggin.

As the lawyers say, "there are whores and then there are
whores."


As Judge Berger explained quite well and in detail in his opinion, while a number of plaintiffs' expert witnesses are admittedly experts in their field, the issues on which they were supposed to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs weren't within their field of expertise. And they weren't being offered as experts who were to testify on matters within their field of expertise.

An expert witness may only testify as an expert as to matters within their field of expertise.

To give what I hope is an easy to understand example: In a case involving allegedly shoddy home construction, an expert master plumber may be able to testify as a expert on what was wrong with the installation of the tub drain in the home, but wouldn't be allowed to testify as an expert about what was wrong with the electrical wiring.

That should be easy enough for even individuals not trained in the law to understand, but the plaintiffs' attorneys seems to have missed that lesson in law school.

Or perhaps, being more charitable, they went with the best "expert" witnesses they could find who were willing to testify on the plaintiffs' behalf, even though the attorneys understood that their "experts" might not withstand the legal test for expert testimony. Sometimes attorneys go to trial with what they've got, even though what they've got isn't very good. However, doing that raises some legal ethics issues.

And, heck, if the case had been assigned to a less astute judge than Judge Berger, the plaintiffs might have been able to sneak the non-expert "expert" testimony in.

Sometimes the fields of expertise are *very* narrow, especially in science and medicine, where there are many sub-specialties. A doctor or scientist may be an expert within a very narrow area and may only testify as an expert within that very narrow area.

Anyone who wants to better understand the legal issues WRT expert testimony, and why Judge Berger decided that the Plaintiffs' experts were not qualified to offer certain testimony, can read Judge Berger's opinion at:

http://www.baltocts.state.md.us/about/publications/opinions/blackwell_memorandum_opinion.pdf



Nancy
Unique, like everyone else



--
Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1
Ann/Emma Anne #4
.

Relevant Pages