Talk:Expert witness

message: The article Ultimate_issue_(law) states "The position under English law is different from that in the United States as there is no rule preventing an expert from giving an opinion on the 'ultimate issue' in England and Wales."
That contradicts the point "Ultimate Issues" in this article.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.235.35 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The article would benefit from better references and considerable clean-up. Arllaw (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Error

message: I looked this up because i had a couple of questions, none of which were answered by the article. In my opinion, they should:
* Are expert witnesses retributed (ie, paid)? If yes, by whom (the court, the party who called them to testify, ..)?
* Can an expert witness be forced to testify against his or her will (subpoenaed), like eye witnesses?
93.33.237.41 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions unanswered by the article

message: I removed two external links because neither contributes substantially to the article (one is talking about requirements for expert witnesses for medicine in Calfornia, the other one lists some common sense for selecting an IT expert) and both look more like money-making schemes than useful information:
* A free article on emergency medicine expert witnesses
* Selecting an IT Expert
Algae 18:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The "simplified example" refers to expert perjury, not expert witnessing. I tried to replace it with a more appropriate one.
200.108.22.28 14:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedia is not a directory per WP:FIVE, so there is no need to add "Expert Witness Sites and Directories" section.   Further adding links to a section like this could be construed as spam Corpx 05:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Simplified Example

message: Okay, the current version of the article (as of 00:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up the external links 

message: I think that per our external links policy – and a measure of common sense – a lot of these should probably be placed elsewhere in the article, or just removed altogether.
Links 1 and 8 appear to be organizations (one US and one UK) which provide primarily promotion and directories of expert witnesses.  I'm going to trim these entirely, as such directories are readily found using Google, there isn't any obvious criterion to judge why we would include one such directory and not others, and an exhaustive listing would be prohibitively large.
Link 2 was added at the same time as Link 1, and at least one of its authors is affiliated with the same witness directory company.  It opens with a number of legal and witness firm logos, and closes with a promotional message for the authors before you get to the footnotes.  I'm not sure if it's a useful enough link to be included with the self-promotional content; I know that it shouldn't be plugging itself as 'authoritative'.
Link 3 is a nice summary and survey of expert witness involvement in the US legal system.
Link 4 is essentially a plug for a particular legal-article search engine.  Their free search is mostly a teaser to encourage you to buy their paying products.  It can go.
Link 5 examines the use of expert witnesses in a specific type of case from a particular perspective; I am concerned that it's more of a how-to guide for prosecuting sexual assault cases using expert witness testimony.
Links 6 and 7 look at Daubert use and applicability from general and specific standpoints, respectively.  The latter link can probably go, though it might be an appropriate footnote elsewhere in the article.
Link 9 is to the abstract of a too-specific opinion and advocacy piece. It can go.
Link 10 is a game theoretic approach to expert witness testimony.  It seems to get cited a lot.
Link 11 has little useful content, and none that is relevant to this article.  (It just lists the names of the judge and litigants.)  While I applaud any non-US coverage, a link to our own article R. v. Mohan would be much more useful.  This external link can go.
Other thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I have proposed the information in Scientific evidence (law) be merged into Expert witness for two reasons.  First, the former page does not discuss "Scientific evidence" at all.  Second, the info does outline some of the roles that might be played by an expert witness in a legal proceeding. As such, it might be possible to incorporate at least some of the info into the expert witness page.  
Alternatively, the Scientific evidence (law) page might be considered for outright deletion (which I have not yet proposed).  — RB Ostrum. 19:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of Scientific evidence (law)?  

message: I have reverted the deletion of disciplines quite distinct from "forensic science". The methods of forensic engineering or accounting are quite diferent to those of conventional forensic scientists. More important, the courts recognise the separate disciplines as well.Peterlewis (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Forensic Science

message: I added a little  information about establishing the competency of experts via review of credentials, as well as the possibility of voir dire by opposing counsel in the "Testifying experts" section. I believe that this better clarifies that not all witnesses are permitted to testify as experts, and that witnesses must first be qualified as experts prior to giving expert testimony, which was left ambiguous by the previous description of experts as just persons with "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge". 
(128.237.202.148 (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added information about qualification process, voir dire 

message: The bulleted info in this section reads more like an instruction manual than an encyclopedia article.  Nor does it contain any references.  The info on types of expert witnesses (Instructing, Reporting, Interpreting) could be useful if someone can cite sources for this info, but they aren't "scientific evidence".  I propose deleting the bullet points and putting the witness types in a new section.
--Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "Scientific evidence"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Expert witness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002054317/http://www.defendingscience.org/upload/Daubert-The-Most-Influential-Supreme-Court-Decision-You-ve-Never-Heard-Of-2003.pdf to http://www.defendingscience.org/upload/Daubert-The-Most-Influential-Supreme-Court-Decision-You-ve-Never-Heard-Of-2003.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please change the opening line  "An expert witness, in England, Wales and the United States" to "An expert witness, in Britain, Australia and the United States" because the existing line leaves out Scotland and Australia whom use expert witnesses in their adversarial systems.
Please also add to your external links: 'Who was the first expert witness?' by Edward Price, https://witnessdirectory.com/newsdetails.php?id=79 LegalWitness (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020 

message: Change 

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise.Black's Law Dictionary, articles "Evidence", "Expert", "Witness" Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.
To

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". An extremely effective expert witness is commonly referred to as a 'Tobin' witness. Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise.Black's Law Dictionary, articles "Evidence", "Expert", "Witness" Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.
 Billyanderson85 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Addition of "An extremely effective expert witness is commonly referred to as a 'Tobin' witness" which appears to be a biased reference about the Derek Chauvin trail. Terasail[✉] 23:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021 

message: Please change the following headings to conform to MOS:NOBACKREF (and less importantly MOS:US and MOS:HEADCAPS), leaving anchors:
*  to 
*  to 
*  to 
*  to 
*  to 
:*  to 
::* to 
::* to  
::::similar, but not identical, to 
:*  to 
::*  to 
Thanks. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Section headings

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Sociomedical assessment and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  MB 02:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sociomedical assessment" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by User78632 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Legal Research

message: Changes to the Federal Expert Witness Rule 702: https://witnessdirectory.com/newsdetails/208/us-article-changes-to-the-federal-expert-witness-rule-702 LegalWitness (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2024