Deliberate Indifference and Inmates’ Civil Rights

The courts apply the deliberate indifference standard to determine if supervising jail or correctional officials have violated an inmate’s civil rights; thus, it occurs when prison employees, including correctional staff, medical staff like nurses, physician’s assistants and doctors know of… Continue Reading

Avoiding Allegations of Deliberate Indifference (Part 2)

Deliberate indifference can be defined as a “conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences of one’s acts or omissions,” or simply put, “What did you know, when did you know it, and what did you do about it?” Without question,… Continue Reading

Avoiding Allegations of Deliberate Indifference (Part 1)

Deliberate indifference can be defined as a “conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences of one’s acts or omissions,” or simply put, “What did you know, when did you know it, and what did you do about it?” Without question,… Continue Reading

Four-Factor Test to Determine Expert Testimony Reliability

The Daubert standard main purpose is to determine the scientific validity of the offered expert testimony, giving defense attorneys more ways in which to attack such testimony.  Thus, judges as “gatekeepers” must use four factors to determine whether the theories… Continue Reading

Adversarial Bias: Expert Testimony in Modern Litigation

Some Daubert opponents often argue that any reliability test is improper for expert testimony, and eyewitnesses’ testimony is not subject to any special reliability test. In this regard, the modern rules for expert testimony assert that such testimony is susceptible… Continue Reading

The Acceptable “Rate of Error” in Expert Witnesses’ Opinion

The “error rate”, one of the Daubert factors, requires the trial judge to evaluate the error rate with regard to whether the method has been tested, and whether the expert’s opinion has an acceptable rate of error. If the test… Continue Reading