class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs


« First Enron criminal trial | Laura Ingraham; featured discussion »

September 20, 2004

Beldar on the uses of experts

The Texas lawyer-blogger has been a prominent online commentator on the controversy over "60 Minutes"' use of apparently forged documents; now he contributes a post on the role of document experts in the affair. (Dan Rather's producers appear to have gone "authentication-shopping", as one critic puts it.) Trial lawyers are free to retain both "testifying experts" (fully disclosed) and "consulting experts" (kept secret, especially when they say unhelpful things) but journalists, whose loyalties are supposed to lie more with the advancement of truth and the public interest than with the advancement of clients' interests, should be held to other standards. The post is a useful primer on expert practice in litigation quite aside from the light it casts on the CBS affair.

Posted by Walter Olson at 01:16 AM | TrackBack (1)

Scientific Evidence



Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.