Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: practice of the profession, is so clearly culpable that a lay person could so find, that the expert testimony doesn't matter closing a patient after abdominal surgery with a pair of scissors in the abdomen any person could figure out that this is below the standard of care. 702 and 403 come in here, undue influence of expert testimony outweighs what little probative value the expert testimony might have! In a sense there are three categories: 1. Topics on which expert testimony is essential party with burden will suffer a directed verdict if it isn't expert testimony...matters on which we would say, a non-expert, a lay jury could not reach a conclusion other than by guess, speculation, or conjecture...without the existence of an expert (ex: Whether a tooth in your lung will cause permanent paralysis. 2. Expert testimony is completely unnecessary common knowledge suffices AND does not exist a useful body of arcane knowledge to bring to the jury 3. Expert testimony is admissible but doesn't necessary help the j...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online