{"id":2463,"date":"2019-12-21T13:03:42","date_gmt":"2019-12-21T18:03:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/?p=2463"},"modified":"2021-12-16T14:56:57","modified_gmt":"2021-12-16T14:56:57","slug":"book-learning-and-being-an-expert","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2019\/12\/21\/book-learning-and-being-an-expert\/","title":{"rendered":"“Book Learning” and Being An Expert"},"content":{"rendered":"

We think of experts as those who have studied and then put their knowledge to use \u2013 they have hands on experience, be it as the treating psychiatrist, the engineer who has built bridges, or the agricultural agent who has worked with farmers foe decades.\u00a0 And when selecting an expert for deposition or trial \u2013 as opposed to one for consultation \u2013 those are the attributes a good lawyer seeks.\u00a0 The expert the jury will respect because of her accomplishments and impacts on people\u2019s lives and livelihood.<\/p>\n

But you can\u2019t always get what you want; and the law makes clear that experts with just \u2018book learning\u2019 can and do pass muster.\u00a0 This finds support in the standard for determining whether a person is qualified to give expert testimony, and in two recent decisions, one federal and another from Pennsylvania.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s start with the standard.\u00a0 Both versions\u00a0 of Rule 702 \u2013 federal and state \u2013 speak of a \u201cwitness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education\u2026\u201d\u00a0 That threshold is low; the common law test, applied in Pennsylvania, is whether a potential expert\u00a0witness has\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on the subject under investigation. If so, the expert is allowed to testify and qualifications otherwise are a matter of weight.\u00a0 The low threshold is raised only in special categories of cases:<\/p>\n

In medical malpractice cases, typically, our courts require a heightened standard for medical expert testimony on the standard of care for a specialized\u00a0area of practice, if the defendant is a specialist\u2026<\/p>\n

Wright v. Residence Inn by Marriott, Inc<\/u>., 207 A.3d 970, 977, 2019 Pa. Super.<\/p>\n

The federal standard is equally forgiving as the \u201cany reasonable pretension\u201d Pennsylvania test:<\/p>\n

The threshold for qualification is low for purposes of admissibility; minimal foundation of knowledge, skill, and experience suffices\u2026If witnesses could not testify for the first time as experts, we would have no experts..<\/p>\n

In re ConAgra Foods, Inc.<\/u>, 90 F. Supp. 3d 919, 953 (Central District California 2015).<\/p>\n

More support for the \u2018book learning\u2019 expert comes from two recent decisions, one federal and one in Pennsylvania.\u00a0 Here is how the federal court explained it:<\/p>\n

Fed. R. Evid. 702 allows the opinions of witnesses who have the requisite \u201cknowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.\u201d The Court finds that Professor Drizin is qualified to testify as an expert in false confessions. He served as the Legal Director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law from 2005 to 2013, and then became Assistant Dean of the Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern. [Filing No. 284-1 at 1.] He also was the Supervising Attorney at Northwestern University School of Law\u2019s Children and Family Justice Center, where he dealt with issues relating to juvenile interrogations and confessions. [Filing No. 284-2 at 1.] In 2008, Professor Drizin founded the country\u2019s first Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, which is \u201cexclusively dedicated to rectifying the wrongful convictions of children and adolescents.\u201d [Filing No. 284-2 at 1.] While at Northwestern University School of Law, Professor\u00a0 Drizin has focused on \u201cthe circumstances under which police interrogation tactics are likely to produce false confessions.\u201d\u00a0 He has written and published numerous articles on the subject.\u00a0 Additionally, he and his students have collected and analyzed false confessions from around the country.<\/p>\n

\u2026Plaintiffs\u2026 do not offer Professor Drizin as a police practices expert, but as a false confessions expert\u2026 Professor Drizin\u2019s work to identify false confessions, his extensive experience in studying and analyzing false confessions, and his authorship of multiple articles on false confessions \u2013 often in collaboration with other experts in the field \u2013 make him qualified to testify as an expert on false confessions.<\/p>\n

Hurt et al v. Vantlin et <\/u>al, Case 3:14-cv-00092-JMS-MPB Document 444 (9\/26\/19, S.D. Ind.).<\/p>\n

Pennsylvania has concluded the same \u2013 reading, studying and writing papers constitutes expertise.\u00a0 Here is the most recent decision on point:<\/p>\n

Dr. Guzzardi was going to testify that field sobriety tests were developed to detect alcohol intoxication and that they had never been validated as indicators of impairment due to drug use. He would have derived this opinion from years of rigorous scholarship. The trial court noted that Dr. Guzzardi had:<\/p>\n