Task force 5: Expert testimony and opinions.
نویسندگان
چکیده
Members of the ACCF or the AHA have a variety of roles aside from their professional relationships with these organizations. Delineation of these varying roles may not always be entirely clear. A member’s particular expertise in research or as a care provider naturally provides the impetus for his or her official contributions to the organization’s programs, written position statements, and guidelines. Individuals may also serve each organization in a variety of official capacities, including as officers, board members, committee chairs, and members. It is the responsibility of the individual member not to misrepresent or imply an opinion as being that of the ACCF or the AHA unless the person is functioning as an officially designated representative of either organization. This may require a formal statement by the individual to exclude any possibility that his or her personal opinion could be reasonably interpreted as being that of the organization (as may be the case if one’s organizational service or contributions are highlighted as part of one’s qualifications as an expert), unless organizational affiliation is absent from the stated qualifications. This is particularly important if the expert is an officer, board member, or committee chair of the ACCF or the AHA.
منابع مشابه
Testimony by otolaryngologists in defense of tobacco companies 2009–2014
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS To examine expert testimony offered by otolaryngologists in defense of the tobacco industry and to assess whether opinions rendered were congruent with evidence in the scientific literature. METHODS Data sources include publically available expert witness depositions and trial testimony of board-certified otolaryngologists employed by the tobacco industry in defense of l...
متن کاملAvoiding ipse dixit mislabeling: post-Daubert approaches to expert clinical opinions.
Recent Supreme Court decisions emphasize the need to regulate the admissibility of expert testimony by means of standards that require opinions to go beyond ipse dixit--that is, that are based on more than the fact that the expert said it. The authors discuss subtextual themes underlying this issue and suggest approaches to attaining expert clinical opinions that reduce the likelihood of being ...
متن کاملFalse confessions, expert testimony, and admissibility.
The confession of a criminal defendant serves as a prosecutor's most compelling piece of evidence during trial. Courts must preserve a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial while upholding the judicial interests of presenting competent and reliable evidence to the jury. When a defendant seeks to challenge the validity of that confession through expert testimony, the prosecution often...
متن کامل"Reasonable medical certainty": can we meet Daubert standards in insanity cases?
When mental health professionals testify in insanity defense cases (more generally, about mental state at the time of the offense [MSO]), opinion testimony is generally solicited after the prefatory question as to whether the forthcoming opinions are held with “reasonable medical certainty” (psychiatrists) or “reasonable scientific certainty” (nonmedical experts). The question and its answer—al...
متن کاملBeing an Effective Psychiatric Expert Witness
Many psychiatrists feel intimidated by or frightened about courtroom testimony. However, with the proper preparation, the psychiatrist need not have a difficult experience. It is the role of an expert witness to educate the court on matters that are beyond a layperson's understanding. In about 80% of civil cases and 50% of felony prosecutions, litigants call on expert witness testimony.1 The co...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Journal of the American College of Cardiology
دوره 44 8 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2004