Judicial hellhole Nevada has no Daubert standard for experts, or, indeed, any standards restricting the use of expert testimony whatsoever. This is especially problematic in criminal prosecutions, where prosecutors have been happy to use junk science such as blood-spatter and bite-mark analysis, with questionable results. A man convicted of sexual assault is complaining about the use of unmoored testimony about "grooming" in his trial, which will give the Nevada Supreme Court an opportunity to review the standard; this is unfortunate, as the other evidence for his conviction seems to have been overwhelming, and bad facts can make bad law. The legislature likely needs to step in. [LVRJ via Bashman]
Expert standards in Nevada
- Breaking: federal Kentucky fen-phen convictions upheld
- How much is the Bluetooth settlement injunction worth?
- Around the web, February 21
- Lawyers ripping off condo-owners in Las Vegas
- Preempro jackpot justice verdicts in Philadelphia
- Chesley experts in two cases drop testimony
- Another lawless jackpot award over propofol in Nevada
- Liability for thee, but not for me
- Texas Supreme Court finishes off Garza v. Merck
- "Win or lose, trial lawyers get millions in Vioxx fees"
- Dewey v. Volkswagen opening brief
- What the heck is going on in King County family court?
- Did Pliva v. Mensing add another nail in the coffin for the Nevada Teva judgment?
- Around the web, July 12
Center for Legal Policy at the