Abstract:Expert testimony can play a pivotal role in a legal case involving a medical issue, but it is crucial that this testimony be scientifically sound. In the United States, the Frye Standard demanded that such expert medical testimony be "generally accepted," but it has been superseded by the more demanding Daubert Standard. Under Daubert, judges became "gatekeepers" as to what scientific material was admissible in court and what might be dismissed as junk science. While a vast improvement over Frye, the Daubert Standard still faces its own problems. Judges usually lack scientific and medical expertise and sometimes have to do their own medical research to be able to evaluate the experts and their testimony. Expert witnesses can be subjected to an adversarial Daubert challenge, even during trial, to establish their credentials and the evidence they are reporting. About half of all judges have had no formal education in handling scientific evidence, but 91% felt comfortable in their gatekeeper role. Considerations for expert witnesses include training or coaching, familiarity with the entire case and courtroom procedures, and an ability to not just know the evidence but to be able to communicate it effectively to a lay audience (jury). Some countries have pioneered a concurrent testimony approach in complex cases, whereby experts argue the evidence of the case under oath before a judge in advance of the trial to determine where there are points of agreement and where the main areas of contention reside. This process, colorfully called "hot tubbing," is aimed at a more conciliatory approach to reaching compromises. Nevertheless, bias still can result even in hot-tubbing cases, and more research is needed to better understand the nature of jury bias and how it can affect jury decisions in complex medical cases.

The Expert Testimony System in Anglo-American Evidence Law

Current status, obstacles and advice for improvement on expert assistant system

Expert Testimony System in Britain & America and Establishment of Expert Testimony System in China

On Suggestion of Expert in Justice

Public Cases, Authentication Opinions, and Amendments to Law of Criminal Procedure

The Pretrial Agreement System of American Corporate Crime in the Perspective of Constitutionalism:Reviewing the Stein Case

Public Opinions on Criminal Trials in China: A Comparative Study of Chinese College Students in the PRC and Hong Kong

An Analysis of the Anglo-American Rule of Character Evidence and Its Principles

Comparison Between the of Expert Witness Model and the Judicial Identification (Expert Testimony) Model

Controlling dishonesty of expert witnesses

Lessons Drawn from the "Expert Witness Rule" of the Courts in the US in Hearing Medical Disputes Cases and its Revelation to China——a case study of two cases in P.R. China and the US

On the Examination and Determination of Forensic Appraisal Opinions

Black Robes and White Coats: Daubert Standard and Medical and Legal Considerations for Medical Expert Witnesses

Testification Standard in Criminal Lawsuit

On the Legitimation of Scientific Evidence

Modification of Civil Procedure Law and Improvement of Civil Evidence System

Expert’s Testimony Evidence in the Criminal Justice Process in Indonesia

The Relevancy Principle in the Federal Rules of Evidence

On the Legality Requirements of Evidence in Civil Action

The Rules of Evidence in Procedural Adjudication

Expert Witness Participation in Civil and Criminal Proceedings