{"id":2255,"date":"2018-12-24T15:47:15","date_gmt":"2018-12-24T20:47:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/?p=2255"},"modified":"2021-12-16T14:57:22","modified_gmt":"2021-12-16T14:57:22","slug":"impeaching-the-opposing-expert","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/","title":{"rendered":"IMPEACHING THE OPPOSING EXPERT"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Rarely if ever will the cross-examining attorney know more about a subject than the expert witness being confronted.\u00a0 Indeed, that is why discovery rules mandate pre-trial disclosure of expert reports \u2013 \u201cThey allow attorneys, not experts in the fields at issue, to prepare intelligently for trial and to solicit the views of other experts\u2026\u201d\u00a0 <u>Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Sav. Bank<\/u>, 619 F.3d 748, 762 (7th Cir. 2010).\u00a0 So a strategy of beating the expert at her own game is not a sure path to success; it may bore or otherwise lose the jury, and it risks letting the expert explain.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center\">\n<p>Nonetheless, an expert\u2019s claims can be checked, challenged and undercut in a number of ways.\u00a0 Beyond the impeachment methods available for all witnesses \u2013 inconsistent statements, dishonest character, contrary information [with experts, often via a learned treatise] \u2013 there are expert-specific lines of inquiry.\u00a0 What is essential is that opposing counsel develop the list of potential attacks, test them pre-trial to ensure their applicability, and then organize the cross-examination to maximize their utility.<\/p>\n<p>Let\u2019s begin with the challenge to credentials.\u00a0 Because the standard for qualifying an expert is exceptionally lax \u2013 according to one court, it is \u201cwhether the witness has \u00a0any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge \u00a0on the subject under investigation\u201d \u2013 the likelihood of exclusion is low.\u00a0 But the proponent of the expert has engaged in permissible bolstering, and the qualifications <em>voir dire<\/em> offers the chance to take the witness down a notch or two in the eyes of jurors.<\/p>\n<p>In the qualifications arena, the following subjects are key to any cross-examiner\u2019s checklist:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Limited practical experience<\/li>\n<li>Missing credentials (<em>e.g.<\/em>, a lack of Board certification)<\/li>\n<li>Inflated credentials<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This last point warrants amplification.\u00a0 An expert may be a member, or even an official, of a \u201cprofessional\u201d organization \u2013 but investigation may reveal that membership comes from an application and a fee, and not based on any performance standard or testing.\u00a0 For an extreme example, <em>see<\/em> The Emperor of Junk Science Forensics Has Died, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/the-watch\/wp\/2017\/08\/31\/the-emperor-of-junk-science-forensics-has-died\/?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.b5fce57a6a59\">https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/the-watch\/wp\/2017\/08\/31\/the-emperor-of-junk-science-forensics-has-died\/?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.b5fce57a6a59<\/a>, (last visited September 23, 2018).<\/p>\n<p>Related to the problem of credentials, at least as to the weight of the expert\u2019s testimony, is that of bias.\u00a0 Bias comes in many forms, some going to the witness\u2019 credentials and others to the shaping of the actual opinion(s), with admittedly some overlap.\u00a0 In the bias area, the following subjects warrant exploration:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Fees (assuming the fee paid to the opponent\u2019s expert is disproportionate to that paid for the party\u2019s mown expert)<\/li>\n<li>The relationship of this witness to counsel, as when this witness has been used repeatedly by the same counsel or lawfirm<\/li>\n<li>What Stephen Lubet has denominated \u201cpositional bias,\u201d the loyalty of the witness to a particular side or the witness\u2019 willingness to only find one [the same] conclusion over a range of cases (<em>See<\/em> Lubet, MODERN TRIAL ADVOCACY, \u00a78.6.4.3.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>There are at least two other forms of subconscious biasing that must be evaluated, although developing a cross on either may be difficult.\u00a0\u00a0 The first arises merely by virtue of who hired the expert, as research has shown that there is a phenomenon of \u201cadversarial bias\u201d where experts begin to align their expectations and conclusions dependent on which party hired them.\u00a0 As elaborated in one research paper, \u201cworking for one side in an adversarial case causes some experts&#8217; opinions to drift toward the party retaining their services, even on ostensibly objective instruments and procedures\u2026\u201d\u00a0 Adversarial Allegiance Among Expert Witnesses, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.annualreviews.org\/doi\/10.1146\/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121714\">https:\/\/www.annualreviews.org\/doi\/10.1146\/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121714<\/a> (last visited September 23, 2018).<\/p>\n<p>And the second?\u00a0 It arises from \u201cdomain irrelevant information,\u201d and occurs when an expert is given information extraneous to the task but impactful on the \u2018lens\u2019 through which the expert views the evidence.\u00a0 Telling a fingerprint expert that the suspect confessed offers no useful information in how to compare two prints but has been shown to affect judgment in cases where the prints are ambiguous or unclear.\u00a0 <em>See, e.g.<\/em> Dror <em>et al<\/em>, Cognitive Bias and Its Impact on Expert Witnesses and the Court, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/publications\/judges_journal\/2015\/fall\/cognitive_bias_and_its_impact_on_expert_witnesses_and_the_court.html\">https:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/publications\/judges_journal\/2015\/fall\/cognitive_bias_and_its_impact_on_expert_witnesses_and_the_court.html<\/a> (last visited September 23, 2018).\u00a0 This may be shown by demonstrating what the expert was asked [or \u201ctold\u201d] to look for; and then have the expert concede that certain information provided is not part of the normal decision-making process in the particular discipline.<\/p>\n<p>Making the opposing expert yours is a critical part of any cross.\u00a0 The opposing expert may be willing to validate your expert\u2019s<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>credentials<\/li>\n<li>methodology<\/li>\n<li>sources of data<\/li>\n<li>conclusions at least in part<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Making the expert one\u2019s own is desirable and should precede any attack.\u00a0\u00a0 But attack is often the primary focus of the cross-examination.\u00a0 A preliminary topic may be to show the limits of the discipline, even where it has survived a challenge under <em>Frye<\/em>, <em>Daubert<\/em>, or 702 principles.\u00a0 Here, questioning may track the admissibility criteria of <em>Daubert<\/em>.\u00a0 Questioning may highlight any of the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Testability (or the lack thereof)<\/li>\n<li>Peer Review\/Publication (again, the lack thereof)<\/li>\n<li>Error Rate (here, the lack of one, or a problematic error rate)<\/li>\n<li>Existence of Standards (again, the lack of standards from examiner to examiner)<\/li>\n<li>General Acceptance (again, the lack thereof or substantial challenges to the theory or method)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Beyond an attack on the discipline are several potential ones on the expert\u2019s approach and conclusions.\u00a0 One such attack is premised on assumptions.\u00a0 Where the adverse expert\u2019s conclusions are premised on certain assumptions, a skillful cross can begin with an agreement that the quality of the opinion depends on the correctness of the assumptions.\u00a0 Here, the list of potential cross-examination points includes:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the danger for experts of relying on assumptions<\/li>\n<li>assumptions made in this case<\/li>\n<li>the concession that if the assumed facts are wrong then the opinion might be wrong as well<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Where a pre-trial deposition has occurred, counsel may already have secured the concession that under a different factual scenario \u2013 <em>i.e.\u00b8<\/em> where the assumptions are different \u2013 the conclusion changes and becomes one favorable to the cross-examiner.<\/p>\n<p>Another area for inquiry may be dubbed the \u201cmore\u201d category.\u00a0 Here, the cross-examination focuses on the limits imposed on the expert, whether due to finances, time or the inadequacy of the materials to be reviewed or the testing options available.\u00a0 Questions may focus on:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>More data would have been better <em>because\u2026<\/em><\/li>\n<li>More tests would have been better <em>because<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Finally, the expert may be pressed on what the evidence does not show.\u00a0 By way of example, a fingerprint expert will have to concede, in most cases, that how, why or when a latent print was left at a crime scene is unknown.\u00a0 Such concessions may dovetail with the expert having to agree that the evidence could have been left in a manner consistent with the cross-examiner\u2019s theory of the case.<\/p>\n<p>Will every one of these challenges be available in a particular case?\u00a0 The answer is almost certainly \u201cno.\u201d\u00a0 But unless each case is screened against these criteria, the cross-examiner may be missing essential grounds for undercutting the opposing expert.<\/p>\n<p><strong>THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED BY NITA &#8211;\u00a0http:\/\/blog.nita.org\/2018\/10\/impeaching-the-adverse-expert\/\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Rarely if ever will the cross-examining attorney know more about a subject than the expert witness being confronted.\u00a0 Indeed, that is why discovery rules mandate pre-trial disclosure of expert reports \u2013 \u201cThey allow attorneys, not experts in the fields at issue, to prepare intelligently for trial and to solicit the views of other experts\u2026\u201d\u00a0 Metavante<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,3,7,11],"tags":[],"coauthors":[238],"class_list":["post-2255","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advocacy","category-advocacy-and-evidence-blog","category-evidence","category-trial-advocacy"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>IMPEACHING THE OPPOSING EXPERT - Advocacy and Evidence Resources<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The art of confronting the opposition&#039;s expert rarely involves a full and complete defeat of that witness; but knowing where experts are vulnerable can lead to a successful cross.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"IMPEACHING THE OPPOSING EXPERT - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The art of confronting the opposition&#039;s expert rarely involves a full and complete defeat of that witness; but knowing where experts are vulnerable can lead to a successful cross.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-12-24T20:47:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-12-16T14:57:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\"},\"headline\":\"IMPEACHING THE OPPOSING EXPERT\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-12-24T20:47:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:57:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/\"},\"wordCount\":1198,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Advocacy\",\"Advocacy and Evidence Blog\",\"Evidence\",\"Trial Advocacy\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/\",\"name\":\"IMPEACHING THE OPPOSING EXPERT - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-12-24T20:47:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:57:22+00:00\",\"description\":\"The art of confronting the opposition's expert rarely involves a full and complete defeat of that witness; but knowing where experts are vulnerable can lead to a successful cross.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"IMPEACHING THE OPPOSING EXPERT\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"description\":\"Just another Law Sites site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"width\":711,\"height\":220,\"caption\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\",\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"IMPEACHING THE OPPOSING EXPERT - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","description":"The art of confronting the opposition's expert rarely involves a full and complete defeat of that witness; but knowing where experts are vulnerable can lead to a successful cross.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"IMPEACHING THE OPPOSING EXPERT - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","og_description":"The art of confronting the opposition's expert rarely involves a full and complete defeat of that witness; but knowing where experts are vulnerable can lead to a successful cross.","og_url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/","og_site_name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","article_published_time":"2018-12-24T20:47:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-12-16T14:57:22+00:00","author":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/"},"author":{"name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e"},"headline":"IMPEACHING THE OPPOSING EXPERT","datePublished":"2018-12-24T20:47:15+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:57:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/"},"wordCount":1198,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Advocacy","Advocacy and Evidence Blog","Evidence","Trial Advocacy"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/","name":"IMPEACHING THE OPPOSING EXPERT - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-12-24T20:47:15+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:57:22+00:00","description":"The art of confronting the opposition's expert rarely involves a full and complete defeat of that witness; but knowing where experts are vulnerable can lead to a successful cross.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2018\/12\/24\/impeaching-the-opposing-expert\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"IMPEACHING THE OPPOSING EXPERT"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","description":"Just another Law Sites site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","width":711,"height":220,"caption":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e","name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)"},"url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2255","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/31"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2255"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2255\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3380,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2255\/revisions\/3380"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2255"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}