Author Archives: Kimberly DelMonico

About Kimberly DelMonico

Kimberly DelMonico is a licensed attorney in New York and Nevada. She received her law degree from William S. Boyd School of Law at University of Nevada, Las Vegas and her undergraduate degree from New York University, where she studied psychology and broadcast journalism.

Psychologist Who Falsified Evaluation to Face Criminal Charges

Dr. Albert Fink, the psychologist who caused a mistrial by falsifying the psychological evaluation of Caleb Loving, will now face criminal charges. An arrest warrant was issued for Dr. Fink on felony counts of obstruction of justice and theft.

Trial of Caleb Loving

Caleb Loving was on trial for allegedly setting fire to the Sugar Mill Creek Townhomes and then taking explosives to a nearby fast-food restaurant. Loving is charged with possession of a destructive device or explosive; arson; criminal recklessness; and false informing. His defense attorney argued that Loving should be found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

State law requires that courts appoint at least two mental health professionals to evaluate defendants’ competency when there is a motion by defense to do so. The court appointed Dr. Fink as a forensic psychologist in Loving’s trial. Albert Fink had been licensed to practice psychology in Indiana since 1973.

Motion for a Mistrial

Fink crashed his car into a tree and was taken to the hospital for injuries. The troopers who responded to the crash believe that the crash was intentional. One Indiana State Police trooper who responded to the crash reported that Fink told him that he was scheduled to testify at Loving’s trial and was afraid that it would be found out that he had falsified his report.

When he learned this information, Loving’s attorney, Vanderburgh County Chief Public Defender Stephen Owens, examined the visitor logs at jail. Owens reports that he is, “about 99 percent certain he didn’t see Caleb (Loving).”

On the third day of Loving’s trial, the defense and prosecution filed a joint motion for mistrial and the presiding judge granted the motion.

Fink has been involved in over 70 Vanderburgh County cases since 2001, including trials for murder, attempted murder, child molesting, and kidnapping. The defense attorneys have been notified in all of these cases.

Vanderburgh County Prosecutor Nicholas Hermann says that he expects challenges to arise in some of the cases in which Fink has filed reports. Owens stated, “I think probably every case he has done in the last few years is going to be required to be reviewed… Whether he did anything wrong or not, he is certainly going to be discredited.”

The Evansville Courier & Press reports that Dr. Fink’s Evansville office doors have been locked and his phone number has been disconnected.

Prior Controversy

This is not the first time that Dr. Fink has been involved in controversy. According to Kentucky state records, in 1993, Fink was under investigation for battery against a child. The State uncovered information during that investigation that led them to allege that Fink had been incompetent or negligent and that he had divulged confidential information. The Indiana Psychology Board voted not to pursue disciplinary action against Fink based on those allegations and the American Psychological Association found no wrongdoing by Fink. However, Fink surrendered his license to practice in Kentucky without admitting any wrongdoing.

Idaho Attorney General Decides Not To Press Charges After Review of Expert Reports and Evidence

The Idaho Attorney General’s Office announced that it will not file criminal charges against the two Adams County deputies who were responsible for shooting and killing a 62-year-old rancher last year.

Shooting Angers Idaho Community

Rancher Jack Yantis was killed last November when dispatchers called him and asked him to put down one of his bulls that had been hit by a car on U.S. Highway 95. When Yantis arrived at the highway with a rifle, he was shot by deputies Cody Roland and Brian Wood.

The shooting caused an uproar within the Council, Idaho community, with protests and rallies held asking for “Justice for Jack.” One protestor, Rebecca Borrow, articulated her thoughts, “(The shooting has) affected this whole community…It’s not safe, it’s not this little tiny community where kids can run around, not be watched…you don’t have to lock your doors. We’re not, we don’t trust the police department. We don’t know what’s going to happen anymore. If they can murder somebody in Council, Idaho, they can murder anyone in this nation.”

Investigations Reveal Evidence Not There to Support Conviction

The Idaho State Police and the FBI separately investigated the incident. The Idaho State Police investigation consisted of interviews with more than 40 people and the review of multiple forensic reports. Captain Bill Gardiner released a statement regarding the investigation, “I commend our detectives for their dedication in completing a thorough investigation of this incident in light of the unique circumstances presented…We appreciate the patience displayed by the individuals involved, as well as the public during the investigation.”

After a review of the investigation, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden announced that his office will not file criminal charges against the two deputies who shot and killed Yantis. Wasden stated that after a review of more than 5,000 pages of reports, lab results, evidence was “insufficient to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.”

At a news conference to the community, Wasden stated, “This is a tragic event…This is catastrophic to a community. I wish there was a different outcome, but I don’t have the ability to do that. But my duty, my obligation, my responsibility is to make certain that justice was done.”

Witness Accounts and Shell Casings

Wasden’s office released new details about the shooting. According to the report, Deputy Wood called Yantis to respond to his bull that was “injured and not very happy.” When Yantis arrived, the deputies became concerned about the safety of others because of the direction that Yantis was aiming his gun. The deputies report that Yantis was pointing his rifle toward the bull, but also toward the crash scene, where emergency workers were still assisting the crash victims. However, Yantis’ family members report that his gun was pointed toward the ditch, not the accident scene. The deputies saw that after they intervened, Yantis pointed his rifle toward Deputy Roland and fired a shot. The deputies then fired at Yantis, who was shot 12 times.

The four witnesses to the incident, Wood, Roland, Yantis’ wife, and Yantis’ nephew, gave conflicting accounts of what happened, disagreeing on whether Yantis fired his rifle. However, the report noted that “In addition to the 20 spent shell casings from the deputies’ guns, a .20 caliber round was found at the scene and Yantis’ .204 rifle had an empty shell casing in the chamber. The FBI ballistics expert who tested the .20 round was unable to conclusively determine whether it came from Yantis .204.”

Wasden’s office was under criticism for taking so long to release the details of the investigation, but he says that the final pieces of evidence, including an interview with one of the deputies and the ballistics testing, were not received in his office until June.

Expert Says That Kendel Felix May Have Falsely Confessed To Murder

An expert witness has testified that Kendel Felix, who is charged with the murder of a Brooklyn landlord, is susceptible to making false confessions.

Marc Janoson, PhD in psychology, testified that Felix has psychological traits that make him “more likely than the average person to admit to a crime he didn’t commit.” Janoson is a licensed psychologist who has specialized in psychological assessment for over 30 years.

Janoson testified that Felix “has vulnerabilities that the literature has associated with false confessions.” Janoson said that his opinion was based upon his interviews with Janoson and his mother in addition to psychological tests that were given to Felix.

Janoson stated that Felix has an IQ of 87, which puts in in the bottom fifth of the population for intelligence level. He also opined that Felix showed signs of neurological impairment as a result of a 2010 motorcycle accident.

Confession

During their interviews, Felix told Janoson that the investigators had pressured him into confessing, threatening that they would deport his parents and that he would never see his children again. Felix says that he was told that he did not need a lawyer and that he was not under arrest. Janoson reports that Felix was told, “If you give us the information we need, you can go home.”

Felix is charged with the murder of Menachem Stark. Felix confessed his involvement in Stark’s murder in a taped interview and in written statements. He confessed after the police asked him whether his father, a preacher, had taught him to tell the truth. Felix detailed how he served as the driver when a group of men snatched Stark from the front of his office on January 2, 2014.

The Case

Felix was arrested in April 2014. He explained that he was approached by someone named “Erskine,” who said that Stark owed him money and that he would give him a cut it he helped scare Stark. Felix also said that men named “Kendall” and “Irvine” had a part in the murder.

In his confession, Felix told investigators that, “I was scared s—less. This was not my thing.” He admitted to paying for the gasoline, but said that he did not light Stark on fire. Felix had worked as a carpenter in one of Stark’s properties, but did not personally know him.

NYPD Detective Christopher Scarry was one of the people present during Felix’s interview. Scarry said that, “He (Felix) was quiet, lazy, laid back, a follower, definitely not the mastermind of this.”

Stark’s half-charred corpse was found in a Long Island dumpster. Felix was the only person charged with his killing.

Stark was a member of the Hasidic Jewish community in Brooklyn. He and his business partner had built a portfolio of 1,000 units. Last November, 50 tenants of one of Stark’s rental properties were evicted when the Department of Buildings posted a notice to vacate based on the building’s “questionable structure integrity.”

If convicted, Felix faces 50 years to life in prison.

Experts Battle Over Proposed Wind Turbine Farm

Atlantic Wind’s application to build a wind turbine farm in Penn Forest Township has become a heated battle of the experts.

The proposed project would be located between Route 903 and Towamensing Township on property that is being leased from the Bethlehem Water Authority. According to the application, the turbines will be 525 feet high, with rotating blades that have a width of over 300 feet. The site is expected to host 40 of these turbines.

The Bethlehem Water Authority has already signed an agreement with the Nature Conservancy that allows for the turbines’ installation. According to Craig Poff, Director of Business Development for Iberdrola Renewable, the umbrella company for Atlantic Wind, “Penn Forest Township has already determined that it is an appropriate use, because it is permitted by special exception… The zoning hearing is to make sure that we meet the objective standards set forth, things like setbacks, unobtrusive color, things like that.”

The area where the turbines will be located is a pristine forest that is home to white-tailed deer, black bear, red fox, gray squirrel, other small animals, and a large population of reptiles that includes about 20 different varieties of snakes.

Poff stated that the site was chosen because it meets four key elements for wind energy production: wind, access to transmission lines, a market to purchase the energy, and an appropriate area of land. Poff noted that, “We supply clean energy and when wind energy is utilized it offsets the use of fossil fuel…Wind has no emissions and does not contribute to climate change.”

Opposition to Turbines

Dozens of residents have spoken out against the turbines, arguing that it will harm the environment and have negative economic consequences, lowering the value of the surrounding real estate.

Representative Doyle Heffley, R-Carbon, released a statement opposing the project. He cited a report released by the bipartisan Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission that found that “wind energy projects destroy 42 times as much land resources as natural gas and 22 times that of coal to generate the same amount of power. Windmills also are widely known to cause irreparable harm to birds and other wildlife.”

Expert Opinions

At the zoning hearing, experts testified about the environmental and economic impact.

Real estate appraiser Don Paul Shearer testified that the project could cause homes within a two-mile radius to lose between 20 to 40 percent of their value. Shearer is know for expert testimony on the estimated damages to Alaska after the Exxon Valdez Oil Tanker spill.

Local realtor, Jeff St. Clair, testified that the devaluing could affect more than just the immediately surrounding area, as the decreased price of the homes near the turbines will also cause the prices of the homes nearby to drop.

Richard James, a noise control engineer, said that noise from the turbines would be loud enough to prevent nearby residents from sleeping.

Pamela Dodds, Ph.d., an expert in hydrogeology, has offered testimony about how the turbine project could harm the environment. Dodds testified that the proposed turbine project would deforest at least 292 acres, jeopardizing the exceptional water quality of the nearby Wild Creek.

New Trial for Man Whose Defense Failed to Hire Independent Experts

A Houston attorney has filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the trial attorney should have hired independent experts to verify the blood alcohol evidence that was used to convict James Barry Jones for killing a woman in a drunk driving accident.

Jones’ Conviction

James Barry Jones was convicted of killing 32-year-old Candice Wise in a drunk-driving accident. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

On August 5, 2015, Wise was a passenger in a van driven by her fiancé, William Michael Kelley. As the van passed through a flashing-light intersection, it was struck by Jones’ Toyota Tundra. The collision pushed the van that Wise was in 300 feet from the intersection. She died at the scene. Kelley suffered punctured lungs, broken hip, jaw, and forearm, destroyed pituitary gland, and pulmonary embolisms as a result of the crash.

Jones was charged with intoxicated manslaughter and intoxicated assault with a vehicle causing serious bodily injury. He was briefly jailed, but released on bond.

During Jones’ week-long trial, jurors were presented evidence that showed Jones’ blood alcohol level was 0.166 two hours after his arrest, which is more than twice the legal limit.

Jones pled guilty, saying, “I’m very, very sorry and I know it’s not enough, it’s not even close, but it’s all I can say. I wish it had been me and not her.” Jones’ mother, daughter, and coworkers testified on his behalf, saying that Jones was a good person and wouldn’t intentionally drink and drive.

Jones was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Motion for New Trial

Deborde is now petitioning the court for a new trial for Jones.

Attorney Nicole Deborde stated that, “Any time you have a serious case such as this, criminal defense attorneys are obligated under the law of adversarial testing. The law requires the defense attorney to have evidence tested. That just didn’t happen in this case…This attorney relied entirely on what the government was saying. It’s a breakdown of due process when you don’t have a lawyer who is independently verifying or challenging the evidence.”

Deborde claims that Jones’ trial attorney, Ed Lieck of Anahuac, failed to conduct independent investigation of the facts, failed to interview any of the State’s witnesses before trial, and failed to hire any experts or investigators to prepare for trial.

Lieck defended his actions in representing Jones. He claims that Jones was involved in all of the decisions in his case, “He was given the decision regarding every single expert witness. He knew he had the right to hire experts to test the blood. He knew all of that…My client was looking at an overwhelming amount of evidence of guilt. When any client comes in and has overwhelming evidence against him or her, but has no prior criminal history, sometimes their best chance is during the punishment phase of the trial.” Lieck also notes that he helped his client by having the charges against him reduced to shorted prison terms.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Operations Director Gives Testimony in Coal Ash Lawsuit

In Richmond, Virginia, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against Dominion Virginia Power, asking the court to order Dominion to remove the 3 million tons of coal ash that are piled along the Elizabeth River.

Sierra Club Lawsuits Alleges Dominion in Violation of Clean Water Act

The Sierra Club alleges that Dominion is violating the federal Clean Water Act because arsenic and other substances are leaching from the ash, to the groundwater and into the Elizabeth River. The ash is the byproduct of coal-fired power generation.

Dominion has argued that the Sierra Club’s claims that the pollutants from the ash are leaking into the river are unfounded. It says that a corrective action plan has resulted in “generally stable or declining” arsenic levels in groundwater. Dominion spokesperson, Bonita Harris, has stated, “We want to make sure that people understand that we monitor groundwater and surface water at the site regularly.”

The Sierra Club and its lawyers have countered that they cannot think of an effective alternative other than removal. The Sierra Club contends that Dominion’s “natural attenuation” strategy of letting nature take its course is ineffective.

The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Dominion filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Sierra Club did not have standing to bring the suit and that the environmental group’s lawsuit constituted a collateral attack on the permits issued by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The motion to dismiss was denied and the case proceeded to trial before U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney Jr.

Dept of Environmental Quality Director James Golden Testifies

At trial, Dominion called several witnesses to support its position. One of Dominion’s witnesses is James Golden, the operations director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, which administers the Clean Water Act in the state. Golden testified that Dominion is abiding by its state-issued permits at the site. He further testified that the Department does not consider the migration of polluted groundwater into a river to constitute a “point source discharge.” A pollution point source is required to be identified for an enforcement action under the Clean Water Act.

Attorney for the Sierra Club, Greg Buppert, questioned Golden on cross-examination. Buppert showed Golden documents from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicating that groundwater-to-surface water pollution does fall under the law. He also elicited Golden’s admission that the Department of Environmental Quality has not taken the threat of sea-level rise into account when assessing Dominion’s ash-storage closure plan.

Judge Gibney has said that an order calling for the removal of the ash seems too expensive. The cost of removal has been estimated at $221 million by a Sierra Club expert and $477 million by an excavation contractor that works with Dominion.

On its website, Dominion states that, “As Dominion shifts to cleaner, less carbon-intensive technologies, we have closed or converted several coal power stations. Coal ash ponds have been used for decades to store coal ash – a byproduct of producing electricity at coal power stations. In accordance with new EPA rules, Dominion and all energy producers nationwide must close coal ash ponds on these sites. Dominion is moving to quickly and safely close these ponds while meeting or exceeding all federal, state, and local regulations.”

Expert Report Finds Cleveland Police Responsible For Death of Mentally Ill Woman

A new expert report has found the Cleveland police responsible for the death of 37-year old Tanisha Anderson.

Tanisha Anderson’s Death

According to the suit filed by Anderson’s estate, on November 12, 2014, Anderson’s family called 911, seeking mental help assistance for Anderson. Anderson suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and had recently been released from a mental health facility. When the police arrived, they placed Anderson in a zone car and she became agitated. The responding officers pushed Anderson to the ground and placed pressure on her back while handcuffing her. Anderson lost consciousness and stopped breathing. She eventually died.

The Cuyahoga County Coroner determined the Anderson’s cause of death to be “Sudden death associated with physical restraint in a prone position in association with ischemic heart disease and Bipolar disorder with agitation.”

The estate of Tanisha Anderson filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the City of Cleveland and Officers Scott Aldridge and Bryan Myers. Anderson’s mother, Cassandra Johnson, says that she is “hopeful this will finally bring justice for Tanisha” and that this case “has been passed off from one agency to another for nearly two years.” The suit alleges excessive force and denial of medical care, wrongful death, assault and battery, and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Expert Report from Former Deputy Chief of Police of Los Angeles Police Department

Anderson’s family retained Lou Reiter as an expert witness. Reiter is the former Deputy Chief of Police of the Los Angeles Police Department and served as a police officer for over twenty years. After his retirement, Reiter has been a police consultant in police training and management, including the investigation of critical incidents, Internal Affairs, liability management, and policy and procedure development. Reiter is the author of the manual Law Enforcement Administrative Investigations and has been retained as an expert witness in over 1100 police-related cases.

Reiter reviewed the court records, medical records, depositions and witness interviews, and police files in Anderson’s case. Reiter opined that “The City of Cleveland, Cleveland Division of Police, in my opinion based upon my specialized knowledge, skills and training and my review of the documentation in this litigation, exhibited deliberate indifference in its training, supervision and policy development by not addressing the known, common field risks of positional asphyxiation. Officers Aldridge and Myers failed to follow basic precautions when restraining Tanisha Anderson in the prone position and caused her injuries due to positional asphyxia. Their actions were consistent with the City’s critical lack of policy, training and supervision regarding the dangers of positional asphyxiation.”

Reiter further found that the officers used “unreasonable and excessive” force in their encounter with Anderson and that they “failed to use reasonable and generally accepted police practices in failing to provide medical care for Ms. Anderson.” Reiter also found that “there was absolutely no excuse to not place Ms. Anderson in a position of less restraint, remove her handcuffs or begin any form of immediate first aid.”

The lawsuit is pending in United States District Court in the Northern District of Ohio as Case No. 1:15-cv-0027 before Judge Donald C. Nugent.

Experts Play Key Role in Ohio Murder Trial Involving One of Six Missing Women

It took a jury just three hours to convict Jason McCrary of the murder of Timberly Claytor. Claytor was one the six women who went missing over a year-long period of time in Chillicothe, Ohio. The story of the six women was the subject of a true crime documentary on Investigation Discovery, titled “The Vanishing Women.”

McCrary’s Defense

McCrary had taken the stand and testified in his own defense, telling the jury that Ernest “Dolla Bill” Moore III was Claytor’s killer. McCrary testified that he had met Claytor at a gas station and they agreed that he would pay her money for sex. McCrary said that Claytor asked him to drive her to a parking lot where Moore walked out of a home and asked for a ride in exchange for drugs. McCrary said that, while he was driving, Moore and Claytor got in a fight, which eventually resulted in Moore shooting Claytor.

McCrary’s trial lasted five days. Much of that time was spent with expert witnesses for both prosecution and defense.

Expert Testimony During the Trial

Defense called Detective Robert Moledor of the Cellular Analysis Survey Team to testify about cellphone towers and communications. Moledor testified about the cell phone records of two separate numbers: one with a 614 area code and one with a 740 area code. Moledor detailed the several calls coming and going from the phones on the date of Claytor’s murder and testified that the geography of the land could have interfered with the signal of the calls, causing them to be routed to a tower in a different area from where the phone was actually used.

Matthew White, firearms examiner for the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation examined the three bullets that were found in the investigation. He testified that all three of the bullets were .380 caliber, but he was unable to determine if they were all fired from the same weapon.

Todd Fortner, a BCI special agent, provided the details of the scene where Claytor’s body was found. Fortner testified about the bullet holes and blood evidence that was found on the car and that some of the blood appeared as though someone had attempted to wipe it away.

Dr. Bryan Casto, forensic pathologist for the Montgomery County Coroner’s Office, testified that Claytor had suffered three gunshot wounds to the left side of her head and a wound to her left hand. He was unable to determine the order of the shots, but noted that they occurred in close succession and were each potentially lethal. Casto also testified that the shots were fired within 1 to 2 inches of Claytor’s face.

Hallie Garofalo, a DNA forensic scientist with the BCI, testified that McCrary’s DNA was in the sperm sample that was found on Claytor’s body. Garofalo also testified that the shoes that were thought to be worn by McCrary contained samples of Claytor’s DNA.

McCrary will be sentenced by Judge Michael Ater of the Court of Common Pleas on August 12.

Expert Witness Report Alleges Negligence in Prison Death

A new expert witness report alleges that Burlington County Jail staff, including the nurses, were negligent in the 2014 death of inmate Jerome Iozzia.

Jerome Iozzia, 50-years-old at his death, was arrested in November 2013 when he used his fiancée’s car without permission. His fiancée accused him of having a history of drug abuse and the police say that he resisted arrest. During the arrest, Iozzia was sprayed with pepper spray. He was later transported to a hospital because he was reportedly suffering from heart palpitations. Iozzia had a pacemaker implanted and was released to the custody of the jail. He later died while still in jail custody.

Iozzia’s Family Files Lawsuit

Following Iozzia’s death, his family filed a $25 million lawsuit against the Burlington County Jail, Pemberton police, the state of New Jersey, the Department of Corrections, and prison personnel.

According to the lawsuit, the prison guards ignored the postoperative instructions regarding Iozzia’s care. An autopsy would also reveal that his prescribed medications were not present in his body at death. Iozzia died in jail on February 25, 2014, after reportedly passing out the night before. His death certificate states that he died of pneumonia/empyema/sepsis four days between onset and death.

A human rights organization, Amnesty International, requested that the state and federal law enforcement officials investigate the deaths of Iozzia and another inmate, 75-year-old Robert Taylor, who also died in prison.

Letters sent from Iozzia to his fiancée detail poor treatment from jail staff. He wrote, “Call my mom and tell her they are gonna let me sit here for ever (sic). And are not takin (sic) care of my heart. Got my meds all messed up. And still no follow up visit to adjust my pacemaker,” and “This thing in my chest is really starting to bother me. Need to get out of here to go back to Deborah hospital to get this adjusted, but they won’t send me back.”

Registered Nurse Files Expert Report Critical of Jail’s Staff

In the new expert report filed in court, a registered nurse with more than 20 years experience states that the Burlington County Jail staff was negligent in their duties, resulting in the death of Jerome Iozzia. The report was written by Helen Strasko, a Licensed Professional Registered Nurse in Manchester. Strasko was asked to review the hospital and jail medical records to evaluate the circumstances surrounding Iozzia’s death.

Strasko’s report details the many ways that the medical staff deviated from the Standards of Practice and protocols of nursing and the jail’s own standard operating procedures. The report also claims that the jail staff attempted to cover up their negligence by altering Iozzia’s medical care documents.

Strasko is expected to testify as an expert witness in the case against the Burlington County Jail.

The Burlington County prosecutors have previously stated that Iozzia’s death was not the result of criminal wrongdoing. However, doctors have stated that his death could have been prevented by proper physical care.

Robert Fuggi, the attorney representing Iozzia’s estate has stated that “[t]he prosecutor’s office should reopen the investigations of these two deaths…Somebody should be held criminally responsible.”

Missouri Governor Vetoes Daubert Bill

Missouri’s Governor, Jay Nixon, has just vetoed a bill that would have set stricter rules for expert witnesses.

The proposed bill, known as SB 591, would have required all of Missouri’s courts, including its probate courts, juvenile courts, and family courts, to follow the federal Daubert standard in determining whether to allow expert testimony.

The Daubert Standard

The Daubert standard has been adopted by the federal government and the majority of the states. Under Daubert, the judge plays a gatekeeper role in admitting scientific testimony. This requires that the trial court judge determine that an expert’s testimony is relevant and reliable before allowing that expert to testify. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 584-587 (1993). An expert’s testimony is relevant under Daubert if it will assist the jury in deciding the case and is based upon sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and the expert has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. A judge also examines scientific testimony for whether the method can be and has been tested, whether it has been subject to peer review, the error rate, the standards of control, and the degree to which it has been accepted by the scientific community.

SB 591

SB 591 was sponsored by Senator Mike Parson, a Republican. It was passed by the Senate with a vote of 20-10. Parson stated that he filed this bill so that Missouri could use the “same standard used in federal courts and all but eight other states and should reduce ‘junk science’ used by so-called ‘experts’ in lawsuits involving farmers, small businesses and in criminal cases.”

SB 591 only narrowly passed the House 85-68 in April, with many Republicans voting against the bill.

The representative who handled the legislation in the house, Republican Kevin Corlew, said SB 591 would help decrease the costs of trials and bring efficiency to the courtroom. He noted, “We’ve had about 20 plus years to look at this in other states and studies have been done and actually showed that this standard will have the tendency decrease costs and shorten litigation…The reason for that is if the judge looks at the so called experts and determines that there’s no way they should have been testifying, the parties are going to have a clearer picture of the case. Judges would have cases disposed of earlier in the process and not have to go through a whole trial. Or the parties could come to a better settlement because they have a better idea of which case is stronger.”

Nixon has stated that this bill would make court proceedings more expensive and would limit recoveries for injured people.

It was expected that Governor Nixon would veto the bill. Lawmakers will have a chance to override Nixon’s veto during a short September session.

The National Federation of Independent Business, the Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers, Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys Association, Missouri Petroleum Council, MSCPA, and Missouri Retailers Association are among the supporters of SB 591. The Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, judges, and labor have voiced opposition to the bill, saying it would cause a court clog.

ExpertPages Blog