In 20 years in the legal industry and nearly 14 working with expert witnesses, I’ve never seen such a damaging assault on an expert witness practice as I did at the end of 2023. Something so destructive it has the potential to erase an expert’s practice. It must be discussed as a cautionary tale.
DISCLAIMER: We are not taking a position on the performance or practice of Professor Eli Bartov. We have not read his reports, seen his trial testimony, or reviewed trial transcripts in the case of New York v. Trump. This article is about the impact of judicial statements on your expert witness practice and serve as caution when taking high profile cases. We still want you to take high profile cases.
What Happened?
On December 18, 2023, Reuters wrote an article that may absolutely destroy the expert witness practice of Professor Eli Bartov. Professor Bartov is a professor of accounting at NYU Stern School of Business. He served as an expert witness in the New York civil fraud trial against former President Donald Trump.
Other major news publications (CNBC, Newsweek, NBC News), with search engine domain authority, also wrote articles on and around the same date.
In each of these articles, the publishers quoted presiding Justice Arthur Engoron’s analysis of Professor Bartov’s testimony which stated, “All that his testimony proves is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say.”
That statement, my dear friends and colleagues, can be a career killer for nearly any expert witness. The judge’s statement may not only affect Professor Bartov’s practice, but the rippling effect of its repetition by major publications tarnishes his online reputation. It is just the beginning of the trouble.
Worst Negative Statement by a Judge I’ve Ever Seen:
If you are an expert witness, you never, ever want a judge of any court to comment in such a negative way about your work. Judge Engoron’s statement essentially calls Professor Bartov a “hired gun,” and questions his competency by indicating the analysis is trash.
You cannot control what a judge says or does. Judges may find your methodology lacking or your opinions to be unsupported. A comment on those issues would be unfortunate but it would not destroy your credibility or reputation. Should the comment resurface in a future proceeding, a capable attorney would probably be able to rehabilitate your credibility as an expert witness.
We have long discussed the need to protect your reputation and credibility. Nothing is more important. The job of opposing counsel is to chip away at your credibility. A high-profile case like this is going to put your expertise and opinions under broader and more intense scrutiny. Not just by counsel but by the media.
After a while, some might ignore the comments of this judge. They may say it was a high-profile political case and the judge was biased against the defendant and thereby biased against the defendant’s experts. I’m not here to discuss those items. Leave the politics at the door. We take the outcome as a lesson to be used in your expert witness practice.
Impact of a Minor Negative Statement by a Judge:
Opposing counsel, in future cases, may scour records of previous cases to find your reports, deposition, and trial transcripts, and may read rulings by judges to find ways to discredit your work. It is their job to undermine your expertise for the benefit of their client. Do not take it personally. It is an unfortunate side effect of our adversarial judicial system.
If they find a negative statement by a judge, they may use it against you in trial to impeach your credibility or question your reputation.
It is the job of the lawyer or law firm that retains your services to counter impeachment-attempts and to rehabilitate your credibility. You assist your counsel in countering impeachment attempts by doing objectively good work, using defensible scientific methodologies and taking cases where you know you can provide an objective and dispassionate analysis.
With some effort, a normal run-of-the-mill disparaging or negative comment by a judge is easily outweighed by your other solid work.
Why this is so Damaging Beyond the Courtroom:
As I mentioned above, so many major news organizations reported about this statement by Judge Engoron. When reading the Reuters article and the damaging comment about Professor Bartov’s efforts in the case, I had to dig further to see how this proliferated. More than4 weeks later the problem continues. I’m not sure SEO geniuses can rehabilitate the online reputation.
Here are some searches a lawyer is likely to do in the preliminary stages of due diligence before hiring this expert in the future.
I encourage you to conduct the following searches, noting that the results may vary by date and location. Here is one search a lawyer is likely to do:
Professor Bartov, NYU Stern School of Business has excellent domain authority and ranks right at the top of a Google search. It is the 3rd organic search result that lets you know the professor testified in a trial involving a former US President. That’s an article of interest for any attorney considering retaining an expert.
There’s nothing horrifically bad in this article. It talks about the amount of fees, but reporters love to write about the amount of expert witness fees. You do see that out of the first seven results, the last 2 results discuss credibility. That becomes a significant issue for any expert.
Let’s try another search. How about “eli bartov expert witness.”
Ouch. We now have several search results discussing credibility.
Most attorneys concerned about hiring an expert witness to assist with a client matter may be now totally unable or unwilling to take a chance on an expert with this sort of easily identifiable negative coverage.
You see, even if the judge was wrong in his statement, the media could have entirely destroyed any chance for this expert to be hired in a future matter because an attorney cannot take the chance of hiring this person and having their credibility called into question.
Finally, let’s assume another simple search. What if counsel searches “eli bartov trump.” This is the worst result.
Okay, well let’s try Bing and see if the results are any different. We try “eli bartov” again.
You get the drift. Second result discusses credibility. It’s very damaging.
In Conclusion:
Any lawyer considering retaining your services is going to be nearly impossible if they find this kind of coverage because opposing counsel is going to have a field day with these stories.
Might you be able to rehabilitate this reputation? Maybe. Will counsel be willing to take on that fight when they’re trying to win a matter on behalf of their client? Unlikely. Remember, you’re in business and you must sell your reputation.
I do not want to dissuade you from taking high-profile matters. They can be great for your practice. They can also be awful for your practice.
If you’re on a high-profile case, it is that much more important to do objectively good work, using defensible scientific methodologies and taking cases within your expertise where you know you can provide an objective and dispassionate analysis. Remember that your analysis will be under more microscopes than normal.
On September 6th, 2023, Netflix releases its latest documentary, Scouts Honor. It will depict how Boy Scouts of America (BSA) attempted to conceal a child sexual abuse scandal of immense proportion in American history. BSA has accumulated more than 1 million members since its inception in 1910 (Boy Scouts of America), similarly modeled to its British counterpart named the Boy Scout Association. Its mission to “prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetime by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law,” is the foundation for its seemingly esteemed reputation. Congress chartered BSA in 1916 under Title 36, recognizing it as a “patriotic and national organization” (TIME Magazine). Additionally, the Title permits Congress to investigate the organization, which it never has (Washington Post). It is astonishingly ironic that certain individuals responsible for upholding righteous principles also perpetuated antithetical actions for nearly a century. Further into the blog, insight from Domestic Violence Investigation Expert and current Pack Master, Rachael Frost, Master Inv. (ret.) will be highlighted. Until then, here is a historical timeline of the Boy Scouts of America scandal.
Timeline:
Boy Scouts of America Child Sexual Abuse Misconduct (Abuse in Scouting)
1920: BSA began collecting reports of volunteers accused of child abuse called “Red Files” just ten years after it was founded.
1971: Unbeknownst to most Scouting employees, executives disclosed eradicating thousands of outdated “Perversion Files,” accounts of known child molesters within BSA. Files were eradicated if the abuser was over eighty years old or deceased.
2007: The Boy Scouts of America faced its first lawsuit. Six former Boy Scouts in Oregon sued the organization for child sexual abuse by a previous scoutmaster in the 1980s. The jury consumed thousands of internal reports and saw how severely BSA mishandled sexual misconduct claims. As a result, the organization paid the plaintiffs $19 million in damages.
2012: The Oregon case documents were made public. From the records, investigators discovered that officials implored sexual abusers to relinquish their positions rather than report them to the police, covering for the abusers to the detriment of the Scouts.
2020: The Boy Scouts of America filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after many sex abuse claims and listed assets totaling almost $10 billion.
March 28th, 2023: BSA settled a class action lawsuit. Reuters states, “The Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice, a group of 18,000 sexual abuse survivors, said the agreement would bring ‘some justice to tens of thousands of survivors, men and woman, many of whom would have been waiting for decades for this day to arrive.” The youth organization reached a $2.4 billion settlement because of this class action and the decades of sexual abuse claims filed (CNN). Depending on the allowed amount of the claims, individual survivors are expected to receive between $3,500 to $2.7 million in damages per claim. BSA also implemented its Plan of Reorganization consisting of programs dedicated to preventing child abuse, from background checks to prohibiting adult and child one-on-one sessions.
Expert Q & A Section:
Domestic Violence Investigation Expert, Rachael Frost, Master Inv. (ret.), explains common characteristics among abusers, how to identify grooming behaviors, and potential legal reforms for the future:
*Disclaimer* – This article does not discuss pedophilia. This is a psychiatric diagnosis defined as “over a period of at least 6 months, an equal or greater sexual arousal from prepubescent or early pubescent children than from physically mature persons, and manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors,” (Psychology Today).
Q #1: In your experience, are there common characteristics or behaviors of known or suspected child abusers? If so, what are they?
A #1: Let’s focus primarily on those who commit sexual abuse against children. Regardless of motivation – whether an intense sexual arousal towards children, or specifically young boys, or because of a sexual desire to manipulate, control, and have sex with children due to vulnerability or opportunity, yes, child molesters have very similar tactics.
The following statement is not to tarnish any fields or people within them with heart and dedication for our youth. There are certain jobs that give perpetrators more access to a child and their family’s trust. They provide chances for them to simultaneously praise and condemn a child’s actions and personality traits to get them to rely more upon the perpetrator’s positive interaction. It allows them to isolate a child without raising extreme suspicion. Overall, they generally choose jobs where they are around children. You do not become an accountant.
Common tactics include:
Choosing a Vulnerable Victim: Kids with poorer relationships with family/foster child/looking for sense of belonging/lonely/taking advantage of a friendly connection.
It is important to note that being a vulnerable victim is NOT the victim’s fault. None of this is their fault. It is the perpetrator’s fault and manipulation.
Providing Special Consideration: “Love Bombing”/special gifts or treatment.
Providing Access to Risky Behaviors: Alcohol/drugs/porn/parties/staying up all night/going to places parents would not approve/etc.
Personal Time: Extra time together/going to a gym/spending time at the perpetrator’s house.
Sharing Secrets
Sharing Touch: Gradually getting them used to touch to “accidentally” grazing more intimate places.
Projecting Guilt: “If you do not do this for me you do not think I am special, you do not care.”
Sexual Contact: Framing intercourse or sexual contact as a learning process and normal.
Denials, Promises, & Blame: The perpetrator relies on their good standing in the community. The abuser also blames the victim’s “bad behavior” if any possible disclosure is heard.
Power and Control: Promising Withholding [below]/promising to tarnish the person’s reputation if they say anything/using homosexuality as a manipulation tactic.
Withholding: Time/gifts/secrets/promises – when the victim pulls away or does not meet control requirements of the perpetrator.
Threats
Q #2: Do you think State and Federal legal reform is necessary to mitigate child sexual abuse?
A #2: Yes, reform should be considered in four areas –
Regulations for Access and How Adults Interact with Children: The Scouts have required safety courses, fingerprinting, and a safety video advising no single adult should ever be alone with a Scout. However, it must be greater to include a full background check by a trained background investigator…, and specific, defined interaction requirements that are subject to civil or criminal investigation if violated.
No adult/set of adult in a room away from other children and adults.
Rotating parent involvement.
Mandatory awareness training for all parents becoming involved in an organization for what behaviors are unacceptable.
Child education regarding what association representatives should and should not do.
Education for and Increased Types of Professions Who Are Mandated Reporters of Child Abuse or Neglect: Even those who are mandated reporters too often do not report, often because they either do not know they should report or are dissuaded by executive staff.
Increased Annual Education for Children and Safe Spaces for Children to Report Abuse and Neglect: Children should know who they can talk to. They can come to the front office, or talk to a teacher, officer, parent, or mentor they trust. Examples of what predators say to keep children from saying anything, and discussing grooming tactics openly, are all important.
Mandated Policies and Procedures to be followed in Child Abuse and Neglect Reports and Investigations and Consequences for Legal Failures: Addressing legal failures that prevent mandated reporters and investigators from letting incidents fall through the cracks is necessary. Including protections for mandated reporters begins with confidentiality and job protection. This should also include specific, supportive direction and significant consequences for the knowing failure to meet these legal requirements.
Additional solutions:
Emphasizing parent education about what grooming looks like can also mitigate child sexual abuse in organizations like the Boy Scouts of America. Parents are advised not to leave their children or a group of children alone with a single adult, no sleepovers, or traveling alone with adults. Finally, they should also pay attention to the amount of time an adult spends with their child and gifts being given to their specific child and not others.
Q #3: Will the Boy Scouts of America’s reorganization reforms successfully reduce abuse, and are there other processes it should institute to prevent abuse?
A #3: This is a start, and additional safety features may be put in place. However, like all programs, it cannot simply be an add-on program. It must become a mantra, a process, a part of what the Scouts are. It must be prevalent in how leaders conduct themselves, messaging from the association, from schools, parents, and participants.
Q #4: In my lifetime, I’ve seen massive organizational abuse and coverups in both the Catholic Church and now the Boy Scouts. Are there other organizations where similarly massive scandals are currently under investigation?
A #4: There are a few reasons why abuse in Scouting was prevalent for so long. While these could be argued as good things, it combined religion, youth mentorship, and regulated behaviors (uniforms, respect, pride, honor) with a leader responsible for teaching children lifelong and beneficial skills embodying the roles of God and righteousness. Parents and other community members saw these gregarious and friendly leaders as pinnacles of the community. They were held to a high standard, supposedly met the standard, and were above reproach. Still, underneath all that friendliness is a complicated, harmful monster. The difficult part is spotting the wolf among the overwhelming group of great pack and troop leaders.
I became a Pack Master because I believe in the mission of providing children a safe space to learn and create community. I wanted to establish an environment where I knew that kids were celebrated for who they were without judgment and mitigate misplaced patriarchy. Fostering the recognition of every culture, race, religion/non-religion, sexual orientation, and gender identification is important. Respect, community, and positive behaviors can develop without fear of Eric Cartman’s (South Park) “You will respect my authori-tay” mentality.
Specifically regarding organizational coverups, they occur in any system or association. Organizations need executive staff members who recognize the true issues of an ongoing problem are 1) wrong; and 2) have to be addressed effectively and transparently. The messages and processes for this leadership must be clear throughout the entire organization and community. Any entity has to inquire about its “Business Culture” during its strategic planning and must meet in all they do. It is crucial for organizations, especially those that serve children, to lead ethically. Lastly, ethics do not rest on a checklist, as true solutions are holistic and complete with redundancies and iteration.
Expert Parting Words:
Emphatically, no one should be above the law and of decency. Evidence-based investigation is vital. We cannot allow for anything otherwise or else we are just giving into cancel culture. There is often extreme corroborative evidence in these cases, especially when law enforcement can quickly get to them.
Conclusion:
According to Rolling Stone Magazine and Brian Knappenberger (director of the upcoming Netflix documentary), “There are over 82,000 and counting survivors of sexual abuse in Scouting.” From the Scouts Honor trailer alone, the courage and fearlessness of the interviewees involved are highly commendable. Tomorrow’s release will provide a more detailed depiction of the severity of BSA’s abominable actions and the suffering it induced. From the current circulation of news, the Boy Scouts of America has undergone a three-year financial reconfiguration process. It also enacted a Plan of Reorganization, where a series of protection policies were implemented to ensure children’s safety. Examples include required youth protection training for employees and volunteers, criminal background checks for staff and leaders, and the ban on one-on-one interactions between adults and scouts. Hopefully, the youth organization and historic institution will clean up its act and keep its promises to survivors by breaking its cycle of criminal behavior.
A special thank you to our Domestic Violence Investigation expert and Pack Master, Rachael Frost, Master Inv. (ret.), for taking the time to provide her contributions.
If you know anyone in need of support, visit the RAINN websiteor call the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s telephone hotline 800.THE.LOST (843-5678).
If you’re a Californian, the last two weeks of storms has felt like a storm season that will never end!
If you’re a Californian, the last two weeks of storms has felt like a storm season that will never end! In the past, I’ve written about major weather related events such as hurricanes and the resulting property damage, insurance issues, and lawsuits. Most weather-related events and their litigation aftermath always seem to happen somewhere else. On the East Coast. Or, in the Midwest. Rarely do they seem to impact California.
California, my home state. A state known for beautiful views. From sandy beaches to exquisite mountain vistas. The San Francisco Bay Area to Yosemite. It’s a wonderful place.
The people… We’re a spoiled, complaining bunch. Until approximately 12/31/2022, you’d have heard regular complaints about the severe drought plaguing our state. We’re filled with fear and non-stop commentary about how we really “need the water.” This drought has been a part of California-life for my entire lifetime. Same sayings. Same complaints. Mostly the same conservation efforts.
As of 1/11/2023, our daily complaints have changed dramatically. Now, we’re bemoaning 13 days of snow, rain, hail and wind. I have to be clear here. These storms have now happened for 13 consecutive days. There have been breaks. The severity of the storms, however, have been unlike anything I’ve ever experienced as a lifelong Californian. Our Governor declared a State of Emergency for the entire State. For weather? Yes! For weather.
Please realize I’m making light of our current situation, albeit briefly, because of my perspective as a Californian. In reality, tens of thousands of people have been negatively impacted by flooding, snow, and wind. Dangerous and long-lasting power outages, property damage, and lives lost as a result of never before experienced weather events.
It’s weird to us because in most parts of the state it’s sunny 300 days a year. Is it cold in January and February? Yes, a little, but it’s sunny. Some years, we hardly get rain worth remembering. In fact, I can’t recall a storm since the winter of 2017, when there was a crisis at the Oroville Dam after rain damaged the spillways. Almost 6 full years with no notable weather events (at least in Northern, CA, where I’m located).
The Santa Barbara mountains face flood issues a little more regularly. They had substantial flooding and mudslides in 2018. Five years later, they are dealing with significant floods once again.
If I haven’t been clear, major weather events in California are rare compared to our fellow US States. Phrases like “bomb cyclones” and “atmospheric rivers” are uncommon here. Let alone multiple continuing atmospheric rivers over a 2-2.5 week time frame.
As I do when I have questions about events in which I have no expertise, I reached out to one of our expert witnesses to provide some insight.
Meteorology and Atmospheric Science Expert Witness Timothy Minnich
Timothy R. Minnich MS, QEP, President of Minnich & Scotto, Inc., is a Meteorologist and Atmospheric Scientist with over 40 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of ambient air and meteorological investigations under CERCLA and the Clean Air Act. He is a recognized technical expert on high-profile legal cases, with assignments involving forensic meteorology and reconstruction of inhalation scenarios in relation to community exposure to hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
Mr. Minnich is accomplished in presenting conclusions and opinions derived from analysis of complex technical data in a well-reasoned and easily understood manner. He is a skilled technical writer and proven manager in a highly specialized arena. He is a nationally recognized expert in the application ofoptical remote sensing (ORS) for hazardous waste site remediation. He has designed and managed more than 25 ORS field investigations and air dispersion model validation studies since the promulgation of U.S.EPA (EPA) Method TO-16 for open-path FTIR (Fourier-transform infrared) spectroscopy in 1988.
After about 11 or 12 days of continuous storms, I reached out to Tim with some questions because I was hearing weather-related terms I’d never before heard. Below, you’ll find my questions and Tim’s answers!
Questions & Answers
Nick Rishwain: California is dealing with a series of storms to which we’re not accustomed. As a meteorologist, can you explain for the layperson, the concept of a “bomb cyclone?”
Tim Minnich: A “bomb cyclone” is a term recently coined to identify a storm (non-tropical) which is rapidly deepening. It comes from the term “bombogenesis,” which means a non-tropical storm in which the atmospheric pressure drops at least 24 millibars in 24 hours or less.
Nick Rishwain: According to news reports, we’re also experiencing a number of “atmospheric rivers.” Or, maybe it is one ongoing atmospheric river? Can you explain the concept of “atmospheric river?”
Tim Minnich: An “atmospheric river” is a term that simply refers to a rapidly moving plume of moisture at high altitudes. It is generally associated with a storm which provides heavy rain or snow.
Nick Rishwain: As a Northern, Californian, we’re not used to the weather impacting us since the New Year. What type of litigation / lawsuits are likely to stem from the wind, rain, snow, and flooding we’re experiencing?
Tim Minnich: I would expect the most common form of litigation would likely involve property damage claims caused by flooding, wind damage, and roof collapses associated with extreme snow loading.
Nick Rishwain: What types of meteorological investigations might a forensic meteorologist like yourself be asked to conduct in the aftermath of a storm ravaged California?
Tim Minnich: Working with engineers, such investigations would provide direct evidence – such as official meteorological observations – to support whether or not the actual damage was caused by the extreme weather conditions at the time.
Nick Rishwain: I’m assuming it would be a good idea for counsel, businesses, or insurance companies to contact you in the early aftermath of these storms. How might a meteorologist assist in the immediate aftermath of these storms?
Tim Minnich: By providing an early technical analysis as to the likelihood of success in either filing a claim (plaintiff) or denying a claim (defendant).
Nick Rishwain: I’m also assuming there are going to standard property damage and insurance claims stemming from wind, rain, snow, and flooding. What are some of the hidden dangers/damages resulting from storm damage?
Tim Minnich: Structural damage to buildings represents the most serious situations arising from extreme storms. The immediate danger of building collapse from strong winds or downed trees is obvious, but compromised foundations represents a risk that should be swiftly investigated by a qualified engineer if serious flooding or long periods of saturated soil has occurred.
Nick Rishwain: You have expertise in “exposure to hazardous pollutants.” Are those a danger to Californians as a result of flooding? Or, as a result of some other storm damage?
Tim Minnich: I would say that exposure to hazardous pollutants arising from direct contact with contaminated water would generally not be a problem, unless flood waters have breached industrial areas — specifically containment facilities which house hazardous materials.
More to Come
We’re grateful for Tim’s willingness to participate in this timely blog post. I wish I could tell you this topic is complete, but the existing storm watch says California may not have any reprieve until 1/18/2023. To the best of my understanding, that only means a reprieve from the currently identified storm front. Not sure what to expect for the remainder of the winter and spring. As such, I may be back with another weather-related update before you know it!
It appears we’re poised to see some changes to Federal Rule of Evidence section 702 for the first time since the 2000 amendments.
In an excellent article published by Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, attorney Scott Hefner provided an excellent history of FRE 702 and a summary of the proposed amendments which if adopted by the Supreme Court, will go into effect in 2023.
Mr. Hefner provided an outstanding summary of the Daubert Standard and its codification and I encourage you to read his article for further depth. I just wanted to provide the existing rule and the proposed changes for your review, so that you and your expert witness practice can be prepared for the possible changes to FRE 702.
Existing Rule 702:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
a. the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
b. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
c. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
d. the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Proposed Rule 702:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that:
a. the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
b. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
c. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
d. expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
For your convenience, I’ve bolded the changes in the proposed rule. In my reading, the only real substantive change is “the proponent has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence…” This is the standard that has always applied, but the advisory committee decided they needed to clarify the standard. Mr. Hefner’s article notes that the committee included the standard to “dispel the notion that expert testimony is presumed to be admissible.” In the years I’ve been working in the expert witness field, I’ve never known this to be presumed. In fact, since law school (i.e. as long as I can remember), the rule has always been that the court serves as the gatekeeper for allowing expert testimony.
Now, I would love feedback from readers on the other “substantive” change to section 702(d). When I look at the existing subsection and the proposed changes, it is difficult to identify how this will actually change anything in practice.
In fact, it seems Mr. Hefner and I are in full agreement on this subsection change. He even mentions, “The practical implications of the amendments remain up for debate.” To take it a step further, he quotes the Federal Magistrate Judges Association as viewing the proposal as not making changes at all but rather “largely clarifying existing practice.”
What do you think?
Do you think this proposal will have any substantive or practical effects? Let us know what you think in the comments or drop us an email at support@experts.com.
$117 million talcum powder Mesothelioma verdict overturned by failure of the trial court to follow their gate-keeping role.
In an article today from Husch Blackwell, they highlight a case in which a significant verdict for the plaintiffs was recently overturned by the appellate court for failures to conduct a proper Daubert analysis.
As most of our members are aware, a “Daubert hearing” or “Daubert review” is the standard used by the trial court for admitting expert witness testimony. It is the federal standard for admitting expert witness testimony, but the standard has been adopted by a majority of US states.
For your brief review, I’ve decided to add the elements of the Daubert test below, from Cornell Law School:
whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested;
whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;
its known or potential error rate;
the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation;
whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
There have been a wide variety of mesothelioma lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors of baby powder products. Generally speaking, the issue arises from long-term talcum powder use allegedly exposing plaintiffs to asbestos in the talcum powder which causes mesothelioma.
In my 11 years in the expert witness field, there have only been a couple toxic tort matters where the science has been as fiercely contested as it is in the talcum powder cases. The only other cases in recent memory where the science is hotly debated involves lymphoma resulting from the herbicide Round-Up. The Round-Up lawsuits resulted in an $11B settlement between plaintiffs and defendants.
This talcum powder case out of New Jersey, was very similar to the other talcum powder cases. The plaintiffs, Stephen Lanzo III and his wife sued a variety of defendants including one Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, claiming Mr. Lanzo’s long-term use of baby powder caused him to contract mesothelioma.
The trial judge permitted testimony from two of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Dr. James S. Webber, Ph.D. and Jacqueline Moline, M.D. On appeal, the 3-judge panel overturned the verdict because they didn’t think the trial court applied a proper Daubert standard in permitting the testimony from doctors Webber and Moline.
According to the article from Husch Blackwell attorney Brittany Lomax, the appellate court basically found that three prongs of the Daubert test were not met, “Namely, the opinions and theories were not tested, not subject to peer review and publication, and were not generally accepted in the scientific community. The panel further held that the trial court did not perform ‘its required gatekeeping function’ by failing to conduct a proper analysis to determine whether the expert opinions met the Daubert standards and failing to assess the methodology or the underlying data used by the two experts to form their opinions.”
As a result, the appellate court remanded to the trial court and ordered new trials for two of the defendants.
It is worth noting, this is a major win for defendants in these talcum powder cases. It appears the appeals courts, at least in New Jersey, are going to review scientific evidence with exceptional rigor.
Before Nikola and the Trevor Milton scandal, there was a prominent blood-testing startup called Theranos. Its founder, Elizabeth Holmes, currently faces a criminal fraud trial.
If you’ve been tuning into business news recently, the latest scandal with Nikola, a electric-powered truck manufacturer, and its founder, Trevor Milton, is no surprise to you.
For those who have not been following along, a quick summary is as follows: Nikola (NKLA) recently became a publicly traded company alleging they had hydrogen fuel cell (battery) technology that would revolutionize the trucking business. The stock did well after IPO. Nikola then did a multi-billion dollar deal with General Motors. The stock went higher. A few days after the GM deal, a short-seller released a report that accused them of a being an intricately constructed fraud. The founder, Trevor Milton, contested the accusations on social media and asked for time so he could rebut all of the allegations. Within a couple of days he went silent, was removed as executive chairman, and deactivated his social media accounts. It has been widely reported that both the SEC and DOJ are conducting investigations related to his actions and claims as founder and executive chairman.
I share that story because some news agencies have suggested Trevor Milton’s story is similar to that of Theranos founder and CEO, Elizabeth Holmes. Ms. Holmes is now facing a criminal fraud trial and she is the focus of our our post today. Stay tuned next week for some further discussion on the issues surrounding Nikola.
Background:
Elizabeth Holmes founded a privately held biotechnology company called Theranos. The company intended to revolutionize blood tests, with just a drop of blood. No more needles and vials, just a small drop of blood, and the tests results would be available rapidly. Ultimately, they failed to deliver tangible results and led consumers to believe false promises. After receiving more than $700 million in private investment, the company began falling apart.
In Spring 2018, Holmes was charged with fraud by the SEC, as reported by Bloomberg. This being a civil action, Holmes settled it without admitting any of the allegations. The settlement required her to relinquish her shares to the company and abstain from being an officer or director of a public company for a period of 10 years. There was also a fine, according to Barron’s. To the best of my recollection, Ms. Holme’s settled with the SEC on the same day she was charged.
In the Summer of 2018, the US Attorney’s office filed charges against Holmes’ for conspiracy and wire fraud, as reported by CNN. This criminal indictment is the inspiration for this blog post.
For more than 2 years, we’ve followed the developments in the criminal prosecution of Elizabeth Holmes, wondering if it would lead us to an interesting analysis from an expert witness perspective. In September of 2020, I found this article from the New York Daily News. It seems Ms. Holmes is preparing for the use of a “mental disease or defect” defense.
More specifically, the article from the New York Daily News, indicated the judge had assigned a neuropsychologist and psychiatrist to conduct a two-day, 14 hour evaluation of Ms. Holmes. Additionally, this evaluation is to be recorded. Now, I had never heard of psychological evaluation being this long and I worked in the mental health field for years before joining Experts.com.
To the best of my knowledge, I had not heard about the “mental disease or defect” defense since law school. I remembered it as a mitigating factor to a crime. Something we learned about when we learned about defenses and factors related to defenses.
So, I did what I usually do with these blog posts, and reached out to the experts. This time, I thought it would be good to get insights from a federal public defender and a psychiatrist.
First, let’s see get a view of the legal opinion…
Analysis from Federal Defense Attorney, Diego Alcalá-Laboy:
Diego Alcalá-Laboy is a criminal defense attorney with his own practice Defensoria Legal, LLC, in Puerto Rico, where he represents federal criminal defendants and advises startups. He is also an adjunct professor at the Inter-American University, School of Law and teaches the Federal Evidence and Federal Criminal Procedure courses at the University of Puerto Rico Law School’s Federal Bar Review.
Nick Rishwain: Why would one use a defense of “mental disease” and what impact might it have on the case?
Diego Alcala: A prosecutor must prove that a defendant intended to commit an act (mens rea), and that he committed the act (actus rea). And most crimes require that the defendant acted intelligently, knowingly, or willfully, and on some occasions recklessly or negligently. The type of “mens rea” a crime requires is defined by Congress and the interpretations given by the courts. On some occasions, an offense may not even require a mens rea, such as with strict liability offenses.
Crimes may have different elements, and a prosecutor may have to prove that the defendant had the required mens rea to commit each element of the offense. If the prosecutor cannot prove this, the defendant may be found not guilty.
Congress also recognized that a defendant may show that because of a medical defect he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his or her acts because of a severe mental disease or defect. After the John Hinkley trial, Congress amended its statutes and eliminated the affirmative defense of diminished capacity but allowed a defendant the possibility to attack an element of an offense because of a mental condition.
This is a lot harder than it sounds. The Courts are the gatekeepers of the any scientific testimony intended to be presented at trial. Therefore, whenever a defense of mental defect is offered by a defendant, the Court must ensure that the evidence offered is grounded in sufficient scientific support. This scientific evidence then must be scientifically sound and must also show that the medical condition negates mens rea of an element of the offense. So, a defense of mental defect, if grounded on scientific basis, and shows that it negates an element of the charged crime, will clear the defendant from a particular case.
NR: Have you ever seen a “mental disease” defense used in a criminal fraud matter?
DA: I have never seen a mental disease defense presented before. But I did find some cases where the defense tried to introduce this type of evidence but was ruled inadmissible because it did not satisfy the Court that the proffered evidence: a) was based on sound scientific principles, or b) even if it was based on sound principles, it failed to negate mens rea for the element(s) of the offense. In fraud cases, a defendant is accused of committing some type of false representation. It follows that the evidence of mental disease must show that if his/her medical condition can be logically connected to a subjective belief that his/her assertions were not false, baseless, or reckless vis-a-vis the truth.[1] I have not found a fraud case in which the defense has been able to overcome this burden.
NR: If it is established that Elizabeth Holmes is suffering from “mental disease,” can she still be held criminally liable for her actions?
DA: If a defendant presents a successful mental disease defense, the federal law states that she will be found not guilty. But a finding of not guilty does not necessarily mean that she is free to leave. A determination of not guilty by reason of mental defect will then place a defendant in a “suitable facility” and may be release only after showing that she is no longer a threat.
NR: Does a “mental disease” defense have much success in federal criminal trials?
DA: As mentioned, I have not found a successful case, and primarily the difficulty lies in the very narrow type of cases that may meet the discussed admissibility standard. Even if she can get this evidence into trial, it is still up to the jury to accept this defense.
Now that we have some idea of the application of the law for fraud in federal criminal cases, we need to review the science as outlined by Mr. Alcalá.
Analysis from Forensic Psychiatrist and Expert Witness Dr. Sanjay Adhia:
Dr. Sanjay Adhia is triple-Board-Certified in Forensic Psychiatry, Brain Injury Medicine, and Psychiatry. Dr. Adhia serves as a Psychiatrist and Brain Injury Medicine specialist at TIRR Hermann Memorial, a Rehabilitation and Research hospital treating those with brain and spinal cord injuries and psychiatric elements of their injury and recovery. In private forensic practice he conducts Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs), and renders his opinions by report and testimony. Dr. Adhia serves on the faculty of McGovern Medical School at UTHealth. You can visit his website at: forensicpsychiatrynow.com.
Nick Rishwain: According to the psychiatric community, what constitutes “mental disease” and “mental defect?”
Sanjay Adhia, MD: These are more legal terms rather than actual formal psychiatric definitions.
According to Merriam-Webster, the legal definition of “mental disease” is “an abnormal mental condition that interferes with mental or emotional processes and internal behavioral control and that is not manifest only in repeated criminal or antisocial conduct”.
Examples would include Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective Disorder and Bipolar Disorder which are considered Severe Mental Illness (SMI). These conditions may lead to psychiatric hospitalization. The conditions maybe associated with and loss of touch with reality and a lack of volitional control.
“Mental defect,” on the other hand, is defined by Merriam-Webster as a “an abnormal mental condition (as mental retardation) that may be of a more fixed nature than a mental disease”. “Fixed” disorders would include Intellectual Developmental Disorder (IDD; formerly known as mental retardation), Autism and Brain Injury. According to this definition, Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) would be excluded. ASPD is marked by a tendency to lie, break laws, and act impulsively. It shares some features with psychopathy or sociopathy. A number of states do not permit the use of ASPD in the insanity defense.[2] Allowing ASPD would have unintended repercussions. For example, it could potentially permit a defendant like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer to avoid prison.
NR: In the court order, it limits the evaluation of Ms. Holmes to a 14 hour, 2-day, psychiatric examination. Is this out of the ordinary in a criminal matter?
SA: There is a wide range of exam times in criminal cases. It would depend on a variety of factors including the type of case, the jurisdiction, the funding available and the severity of the charge. Assessment time in a misdemeanor will not be identical to a capital case. Ms. Holmes’ case is not a capital case, but it helps to understand differences in how long the examination might take. The exam time in a Competency to Stand Trial for a misdemeanor trespassing case would likely be under two hours. I have seen some examiners spend 30 minutes for the interview in such cases. The other extreme would be Capital cases which could go over 8 hours or several days; this is especially true if neurocognitive testing is required, which can take an entire day.
Again, in a capital case the threshold and the stakes are very high—especially in death penalty cases that often go to the appeals court.
In misdemeanor cases, you may have a single mental health expert and the findings may be accepted without the need for an opposing expert. In Capital cases, the defense itself may retain several mental health and other medical experts (i.e. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome experts). In the Holmes case, the 14 hours is to be shared between a forensic neuropsychologist and a forensic psychiatrist.
As it is a high-profile case, it is possible that the court may allow additional funds or there maybe a willingness of the expert to work within a budget.
It is my experience that the examination in insanity cases take more time than other types of cases as you have to elicit a detailed account of the crime from the defendant and then determine the mental state at a time in the past and consider malingering (lying for secondary gain—like a lesser sentence). I suspect in the Holmes case, it is likely the charges are not limited to one circumscribed incident so it could take additional time. It is worth noting that time spent reviewing records and preparing a report could exceed twenty hours or more.
NR: What information might you need to establish or rebut an insanity defense?
SA: In addition to interviewing the defendant, it would be helpful to review medical records, legal records along with police records and videos. I often will interview collateral informants as well. In Ms. Holmes’s case there maybe, media accounts, if admissible, as well as financial records and corporate documents. Of course, an expert would review the other expert witness reports. Records in a violent crime could include an autopsy, or blood splatter expert reports, for example. In the Holmes case, there may be a forensic accounting or fraud expert report. Other sources of data could include polygraph testing, school records and employment records.
NR: In the Holmes case, the defense has retained a trauma expert. Is it common to successfully assert an insanity defense in cases of PTSD?
SA: Insanity defenses are more commonly associated with other diagnoses that are considered to be more severe forms of mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and IDD because they have a different impact on decision-making and regulating behavior. Although many individuals with PTSD do suffer with severe symptoms, they are generally able to maintain awareness of the nature of their acts and appreciate the wrongfulness of such acts. In jurisdictions that allow for the volitional prong, individuals with PTSD are generally considered to be able to behave lawfully. Of course, there are cases where PTSD is successfully asserted as an insanity defense.[3] In cases where the defense attorney realizes the PTSD does not lend itself for an insanity defense, they may successfully utilize it for sentence mitigation.
[1]United States v. Bennett,29 F. Supp. 2d 236 (E.D.Pa. 1997), aff’d 161 F.3d 171, 183 (3d Cir.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 819, 120 S. Ct. 61, 145 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1999)
Remote depositions appear to be growing. As an expert witness, what should you do to improve your presentation and performance to maintain credibility and authority?
As more professionals work from home, remote depositions will continue to rise in popularity and usage. But, the extent of the rise is hard to tell since there is a lack of any hard data on the subject. One of our contributors, Isaiah Leslie, has provided some anecdotal information on the subject. We know court hearings and administrative meetings are taking place remotely. In an article from the Fort Worth Star Telegram, we learn about what may be the first remote jury trial in the U.S., which occurred in Texas. With an increase in remote hearings, depositions, and even jury trials, we wanted to give you some information about presentation and performance as an expert witness in remote deposition.
There have been an abundance of articles discussing remote depositions, but none of them appear to cover best practices for the deponent and, relevant to Experts.com members, the expert witness. Instead, the articles discuss the law permitting remote depositions; the local rules to be followed; agreements between lawyers about sharing of discoverable information; procedures for exhibits; whether the deposition is going to be taken by video conference or the deposition is being video recorded; and operation of several of the remote video platforms. The information is important for all parties to a litigation, but none of it helpful to the deponent.
To this end, I had to do some digging and contact a bunch of folks for their insights. We received some great feedback from court reporters, court videographers, and live video marketing professionals. Below is a summary of suggested best practices for expert witnesses before and during a remote deposition, focusing on presentation, apparel, lighting, audio, video, and overall performance.
Increase in Remote Depositions:
One of our contributors, Isaiah Leslie, a co-founder and partner at Regal Court Reporting, provided us with the best data on the increase in remote depositions from his company’s personal experience. In March of 2020, only 2.6% of their depositions were remote. By April, all of their depositions were remote, increasing by 550%. Although remote depositions have not outnumbered their previous in-person deposition numbers, as Isaiah noted, the adoption is still significant.
The increase in remote depositions makes sense, given the shelter-in-place orders throughout the country. Many of those who adopted remote deposition by necessity have discovered its advantages. By no means am I suggesting remote depositions would replace in-person depositions entirely. However, as legal professionals become more comfortable with videoconferencing technology, it’s reasonable to anticipate continued growth in remote depositions even after COVID-19.
Legal system participants are likely to realize, if they have not already, the value of videoconferencing. It is convenient for all involved, as there is no need to travel to the deposition location. Reduced travel should lower litigation costs as parties will no longer have to pay for travel time and costs (for lawyers and expert witnesses). Most importantly at the present time, it provides the added benefit of being socially distanced.
With this expectation remote depositions will become more prevalent, even post-COVID-19, here are the suggestions from our contributors, to help you as a deponent, give your best presentation and performance.
Court Reporter Suggestions:
Isaiah Leslie and I have become friendly on Twitter, which for those who know me, is where I’ve made a significant number of professional relationships. Isaiah brought his partner and wife, Stephanie Leslie, into the conversation so we can get some outstanding suggestions direct from a court reporter who regularly participates in depositions.
As with other past blogs, I provided a variety of questions and Mrs. Leslie provided some outstanding responses (some edited for brevity and clarity).
Nick Rishwain: Have you experienced an increase in remote/virtual depositions during COVID-19?
Stephanie Leslie: We have certainly seen more remote depositions than usual, but unfortunately most law firms are still not jumping on board fully quite yet for a variety of reasons. One being their lack of comfort with the technology aspect of things. Once they try it, they typically schedule more after that. It’s just making the plunge.
NR: Based on your experience doing in-person video depositions and remote depositions, have you identified any best practices for deponent performance?
SL: The most crucial thing with remote depositions is abiding by the admonition to not talk over others. As a working reporter myself, I can attest to the fact that speakers talking over each other is always a nuisance and makes my job exponentially harder, but in remote depositions it is absolutely critical because remote platforms, such as Zoom, act similarly to a speakerphone, and it can only choose one voice to allow through the system, so if there is simultaneous speaking, I can usually hear no one. And then, to add insult to injury, if other speakers are talking, I cannot successfully interrupt and remind everyone to speak one at a time because no one can hear me either. I have found that even though it feels very tedious to go slowly and methodically, it actually makes the deposition go more quickly and smoothly.
NR: My customers are concerned with coming across as credible, knowledgeable, professional and authoritative in their field. What do you recommend for best remote deposition performance?
SL: I have taken several expert depositions recently, all remotely, and I don’t think the virtual aspect of the deposition makes much of a difference. I felt like it was any other expert deposition. It was very clear to me which experts were knowledgeable and confident about the subjects upon which they were opining, and others were obviously not as much. I think a great CV and clear opinions backed by evidence still come through clearly to all observers.
NR: Any suggestions on apparel, lighting, audio/video setup?
SL: I have seen some sharp solid-colored virtual backgrounds created with an expert firm’s logo placed in the top corner just to the side of the witness, and it is very professional looking and memorable while not detracting from the substance of the proceeding. Apparel — I suggest still making sure you’re completely professional on top. What’s on bottom is up to you! I use an inexpensive cube light to help illuminate my face, but if the room is well lit (not too much back light), I don’t think it’s particularly necessary. Audio is the most important thing. Please test your connection and audio quality beforehand!
NR: Any further suggestions I may not have asked?
SL: As usual (but even more important with remote), if you are able to provide any spellings or technical words to the stenographer before the deposition, that is always appreciated. We usually come into the case with little to no context on the facts and your background and role, so anything you can assist with along the way is invaluable!
Legal Videographer Suggestions:
Isaiah, continued to provide me with excellent access to his team and we got some outstanding feedback from Sean Malone, of Malone Video, who works primarily with Regal Court Reporting.
The same questions provided to Stephanie Leslie were also sent to Mr. Malone. His different experiences from a videographer perspective are equally beneficial to the expert witness.
Sean answered the questions in a slightly different format, which have been edited for brevity and clarity.
Nick Rishwain: Have you experienced an increase in remote/virtual depositions during COVID-19?
Sean Malone: Definitely. Though overall some attorneys are still hesitant to go remote, others have been willing to test, and even embrace remote depositions right now, due to the quarantine. As a legal videographer, before the quarantine I had done exactly zero remote depositions. Since the quarantine, I have done at least 2 to 3 per week, on various platforms, and all for clients that were mainly accustomed to in-person depositions before COVID-19.
For the following, questions 2-4, Sean answered the questions in aggregate. So, you don’t have to scroll up to find those questions again, I’ve added them below:
NR: Based on your experience doing in-person video depositions and remote depositions, have you identified any best practices for deponent performance?
NR: My customers are concerned with coming across as credible, knowledgeable and an authority in their field. What do you recommend for best remote deposition performance?
NR: Any suggestions on apparel, lighting, audio/video setup?
SM: As a legal videographer, the things that matter in an in-person deposition are the same things that matter for a remote deposition. For example, is the deponent well lit? Are they centered in frame? Can they be clearly seen and heard? I’d recommend a similar approach for everyone involved in a remote deposition: identify your best in-person deposition practices and translate those to the medium of video conference.
Just like in real life, the witnesses I’ve observed that come off well are the witnesses who:
Are professionally dressed.
Are well mannered/aware that they are the focus of the deposition and the video record.
Listen to and directly answer attorney questions.
One note on that last one: Just like in real life, we all know that deponents should let the taking attorney finish their question before starting to answer, and also pause a little so that the opposing attorney can get in their objections… But this is especially important during a remote deposition, because of that notorious split-second delay present in all video conferencing platforms.
To present yourself well and make the videographer love you, you can:
Make sure you are well lit, and not heavily backlit.
Make sure whatever is in the background behind you is relatively neutral and not distracting (in other words, maybe take that Backstreet Boys poster down before logging on).
Make sure the area around you is tidy and free from clutter.
Make sure the camera built into your computer is as close to your eye-level as possible. If the camera is too low, like on your lap for instance, everyone will view you (and the video record will capture you) from an unflattering, upward angle. Eye-level or at least face-level is the best idea for a flattering shot of you.
Ideal framing is you in the center of the frame, with your torso and head visible in frame, with a little bit of headroom on top (headroom is the small space between the top of your head and the top of the frame). See picture:
Make sure you are joining the video conference from a reliable device that has a decent camera and microphone built in.
Make sure that device is charged!
Some additional tips on your Internet connection. So that your testimony can be captured optimally by both the court reporter, and the videographer, make sure your Internet connection is as strong as possible. Office internet is more robust than home internet, but if you are at home, you can try:
Connecting your device via Ethernet cable rather than WiFi.
If you cannot connect via Ethernet cable, choose the spot in your home with the strongest WiFi signal.
Ask other members of your household to refrain from moderate or heavy Internet use that day (e.g. have them avoid streaming TV, playing online games, etc.)
NR: Any further suggestions I may not have asked?
SM: I always like to say that everyone in a deposition has a job to do. Therefore, I try to help others do their jobs well, by doing my job well. I think that approach can be helpful no matter what your job is!
As we feel this is going to be a growing experience for witnesses and expert witnesses, we wanted to create a blog post that is truly helpful to your presentation and performance. So, we brought in one more voice to help you nail that remote deposition!
Live Video Marketing Professional Suggestions:
As some of my readers know, I’ve been doing live video since about 2015. However, I do it as a hobby. Our next contributor does it professionally and has written a book on the subject. I’m just lucky enough to know her and call her a friend. Jennifer Quinn, is a leading consultant on Internet live-streaming. I reached out to her and asked her for her input regarding presentation and performance.
Here are the suggestions provided direct from Jenny. In this instance, I asked questions more generally and Jenny gave me us some outstanding suggestions, all of which should be considered for remote depositions.
NR: I’m looking for suggested best practices. How would you want an expert witness to be prepared for remote deposition? What best practices do you suggest?
Jennifer Quinn: The fastest way to build trust with someone is to show up the way they expect you to show up. Traditionally, as an expert witness, you would arrive, dressed professionally, sit upright, and be fully prepared for the deposition.
The question most expert witnesses have today is how to transfer that same level of authority, and trust one would have face to face or in-person to a video format.
There are a few quick and easy ways to convey instant authority and credibility when preparing for a video deposition.
Pay attention to your background – be sure it conveys professionalism.
Dress the same way you would dress if you were attending court in person.
Make virtual eye contact with the video viewers by looking directly into the lens of the camera. Yes, this will feel awkward; however, it is possibly the most crucial skill you can master if you want to instantly build trust in this new era of video. Looking directly into the lens of the camera simulates eye contact and conveys authenticity more powerfully than anything else you can do when recording video.
In my book, I reference the need to pay attention to L.A.V.S.: Lighting, Audio, Video, Stability.
Lighting:
Daylight – sit in front of the window with the light shining in on your face.
Ring light – clips on to your phone.
Box lighting – home office studio setup.
Turn off the overhead lighting in the room.
Audio:
Earbuds with built-in mic.
External microphone.
USB/Studio mic.
Video:
Cell phone camera.
Built-in webcam.
USB webcam.
Keep the lens camera at eye level.
Look into the lens.
Stability:
Prop phone up – at eye level (think books, boxes, etc.).
Tripod or mount.
Desktop/laptop – don’t bump desk or table.
There you have it. Four different individuals telling you how to up your remote deposition game as remote depositions have drastically increased in the last 90 days.
Throughout shelter-in-place, many lawyers and parties have experienced the benefits of remote depositions. It has proven both convenient and cost effective. We do not expect the trend in growth to wane any time soon. If anything, we could be witnessing a completely new shift in how the legal system communicates.
A hastily-developed app and combined with a lack of user testing caused a ruckus in Iowa Caucus voting this week. What’s in store for New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and beyond?
It has been an exciting week in US politics. We had a State of the Union address and an impeachment vote. A whirlwind week by any standard! Before we could even get to those two events, we started the week with an outrageous technology failure in the Iowa Democratic Caucus. For purposes of this blog post, I’m not going into the differences between a caucus and a primary. Let’s just assume they accomplish the same result: selecting a candidate for political office.
For the Iowa Democratic Party, Monday night was a disaster and then it continued into Tuesday, Wednesday… you get the idea. As I write this blog post on Friday morning, I’m not even sure if they have an official determination of who won. The news stories seem to be conflicting.
So here is what we know about the app (IowaRecorder) failure based on available reports. The Iowa Democratic Party hired a marketing technology company to build an app which would be used, statewide, to report results of local caucus votes (I’m simplifying for purposes of brevity). The app was going to be used to submit voting results. Nobody was actually voting through the app.
This first really good article I read that outlined the technology implementation failure, came from Slate. Here was a good summary from a couple of days ago:
“It’s still unclear what exactly went wrong with the app, but all of these issues appear to have something in common: The Iowa Democratic Party clearly wasn’t prepared for any possible issues with the app and a more involved method of vote reporting introduced this year—and sure enough, it reportedly turns out that the app was never tested on a statewide scale. Shadow, which is run by alumni of the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns as well as Google, was paid $60,000 to develop the app, but it had just two months after party officials decided to abandon plans to report results over the phone.”
There’s some updated information on the failure from Motherboard, which was released yesterday (along with the app code). Below, you’ll see that they released an app that was still in beta format:
“And Instead of going through proper app store review processes conducted by Apple and Google, Shadow used beta testing platforms like Apple’s TestFlight to distribute the software so it could meet the Monday deadline. So when it came time for the app to do its most critical role — letting Democratic precinct leaders report results from Iowa on Monday — it failed in every way imaginable.”
Expert Analysis:
As I do when these major stories break, I turn to Experts.com members to get insights. You may recall Dr. Stephen Castell. Dr. Castell, Chartered Information Systems Practitioner and Member of the Expert Witness Institute, is Chairman of CASTELL Consulting. He is an internationally acknowledged Independent Computer Expert who has been involved in a wide range of computer litigation over many years.
Dr. Castell and I wrote a blog post back in 2018, regarding West Virginia’s Blockchain voting program. They are actually expanding this plan, which may necessitate a separate blog post.
Below, please find my questions and Dr. Castell’s answers (Disclaimer: these questions and answers provided on February 5th, 2020):
Nick: From available reporting, it appears the Iowa Democratic Party failed to do a statewide testing of this vote reporting application. What type of tests would have been necessary to identify errors in the system before statewide roll-out?
Dr. Castell: As other ICT professionals comment in the reports, there should be thorough systems testing and QA procedures, including User Acceptance Testing and Pilot Trials, plus scaled-up ‘soak testing’, before contemplating any real-world launch, such as this statewide roll-out. You expect to get errors in systems testing – its main purpose is to identify faults and fix them. Sadly, software systems and Apps these days do seem often to be launched publicly without adequate systems testing, let alone with adequate prior User Testing and Pilot Trials. If such standard professional QA processes were omitted, or truncated, for something as high-profile and important as an App to collect and relay voter data in the Iowa Caucus, that does appear rather astonishing.
Nick: It doesn’t appear that all of the fault lies with the app developer. It seems the Iowa Democratic Party only gave the app developer 2 months to develop and deploy this application. What sort of time-frame would you anticipate to develop, test, and implement a software of this scale?
Dr. Castell: That is difficult to estimate without more knowledge of the actual detailed Customer Requirements Specification that the developer’s App was contracted to meet. On the face of it, an App simply to in-gather voting data, aggregate and transfer it, sounds in principle like fairly straightforward functionality to code, test (at scale) and implement, and 2 months may not have been an unrealistic timescale for development, testing and deployment.
Nick: Would you expect there to be a certain level of user sophistication for those using the app on this scale? Should there have been company representatives available at caucus sites?
Dr. Castell: Reports suggest that there was little prior familiarity, let alone ‘training’, or ‘user sophistication’, with the App on the part of those expected to employ it for real, in the high-pressure, real-time Iowa Caucus conditions. Whatever the state of compliance of the App with its contractual specification – perhaps reasonably well delivered to time, budget, specification, and of suitable quality, ‘fit for purpose’ – if there was no program for adequate user familiarity and training, plus some sort of support and trouble-shooting team from the developer company at caucus sites, that alone could account for the problems encountered in statewide roll-out operation.
Nick: From what I’ve read, it looks like the company was paid $60,000 to build this application. Is there any way to gauge whether this is too little or too much for this type of application development?
Dr. Castell: Again, that is difficult to gauge without more knowledge of the actual detailed Customer Requirements Specification, and thus the likely complexity of the functionality needed, and its associated software design and coding; also, there may have been a tight budget to which the developer company was obliged to work. It is not unusual for software developers to invest in a ‘plum’ assignment such as this high-profile Iowa Caucus project, for the promotional and marketing impact that gives them in securing hopefully more lucrative and profitable development jobs later. In this case, the $60,000 could have been much less than the true cost to the developer company of the analyst, designer, coder, tester, deployer and trainer man-days expended in building and launching the App with a statewide roll-out, against a tough deadline.
Nick: What sort of testing, trials, and quality assurance requirements would you have employed prior to such an implementation?
Dr. Castell: There should ideally have been thorough systems testing and QA procedures, including User Acceptance Testing and Pilot Trials, plus scaled-up ‘soak testing’, well understood by ICT professionals, before the real-world launch of this statewide roll-out. Relevantly, I teach a Course Avoiding IT Disasters – the Expert Way, the principles of which are also covered in my seminal paper “Forensic Systems Analysis: A Methodology for Assessment and Avoidance of IT Disasters and Disputes”, issued as a Cutter Consortium Executive Report, Enterprise Risk Management & Governance Advisory Service series (Vol. 3, No. 2, March 8, 2006).
We cannot say that New Hampshire is next. All available information tells us that New Hampshire is not using the same company/app used in the Iowa Caucuses. Furthermore, there was talk of Nevada using the app, but they have claimed they will not move forward with the application.
That’s the end of this particular blog post. Though, we’re already in talks about another post related to voting systems.
Recently, we have received some questions from expert witnesses regarding potential liability for expert witness testimony. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decided this issue last Friday.
Last week, on October 26th, 2018, the United States, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal common law “witness litigation privilege” protects an expert witness for civil claims stemming from their testimony.
The matter involved a coal miner who was claiming benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. According to the expert witness the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s claim and the claim was denied. Thereafter, a report from the Center for Public Integrity alleged the “Johns Hopkins radiology unit and its expert witnesses were much less likely to find evidence of black lung disease than other doctors.”
The report from the Center for Public Integrity led to a lawsuit against Johns Hopkins and their doctors claiming liability for fraud, tortious interference, misrepresentation and more. The trial court dismissed the claim citing the federal common law “witness litigation privilege.” According to Gravel2Gavel, the appeals court was divided on the issue, but agreed with the trial court decision.
The Fourth Circuit stated “absolute immunity” applies to the expert witness testimony. They went further to state, “‘when a witness takes the oath, submitting his own testimony to cross-examination, the common law does not allow his participation to be deterred or undermined by subsequent collateral actions for damages.’” This is a really wordy way for the court to say an expert witness cannot later be sued for their testimony.
We also went ahead and summarized the ruling in this video:
Hurricane Florence has rapidly expanded in Category 4 hurricane, with a strike expected to make landfall on Thursday. How can those in the path of the storm prepare?
If you’re like me, you are always a little skeptical of meteorological reporting. With that said, I live in California and have never experienced truly catastrophic weather, so I’m not a good “barometer” for the appropriate response. I would likely be the person on top of my house because I didn’t listen to the warnings — and, for that, I apologize in advance to search and rescue for my foolishness.
Do not let that happen to you!
The 2018 Atlantic Hurricane Season is upon us. According to several reports, there are a few hurricanes brewing in the Atlantic Ocean. The one to be aware of at this moment, is Hurricane Florence. The Weather Channel has excellent coverage for those who may be in the path of the storm.
As of this writing, The Weather Channel is advising citizens to Prepare Now: Florence Explodes from Cat. 2 to Cat. 4 in Just Hours. This post did not mince words. It warns that as of today, Florence is massive and dangerous, stating “Hurricane Florence has rapidly intensified into a Category 4 major hurricane southeast of Bermuda and is likely to lash the East Coast later this week with life-threatening storm surge, destructive winds and massive inland rainfall flooding in one of the strongest strikes on this part of the East Coast on record.”
It is true, that this may change and the storm may turn and remain at sea. From everything I read this morning, now is the time to prepare and anticipate Florence making landfall, rather than count on it remaining at sea.
As we have done before, I have contacted Experts.com members and asked them for some preparation input for those facing the storm. Forgive the brevity of some of these answers, but both of these members are on the East Coast and busy preparing for the impending hurricane.
General Contractor & Construction Expert Witness – John Minor
John G. Minor, President of Complete General Contractors, is a third-generation Contractor and licensed instructor certified by the North Carolina Department of Insurance. He is a recognized expert on the costs and applications necessary to repair buildings damaged by manufacturer, builder liability, water damage or intrusion, mold, or asbestos. Mr. Minor will be on the ground with the University of Florida Hurricane Research team. You can learn more about his practice at teamcomplete.com.
My questions to Mr. Minor were as follows:
Nick: What steps should property owners take to prepare for the landfall of Hurricane Florence?
Mr. Minor: Understand that if they choose to shelter in place they must have a strong residence or shelter that will not flood. Sage advice is to hide from the wind run from the flood.
Nick: What are the most common types of property damage from a hurricane?
Mr. Minor: Wind and flood damage from this storm. As a strong cat 3 or easy 4, residential shingle damage (see Saffir–Simpson scale). If the storm lingers and pulls Atlantic waters into the Carolinas, major flooding for the Tar and Cape Fear Rivers in an already swollen river system. Know your floodplain.
Nick: Is there anything homeowner’s can do to limit property damage from wind, rains, storm surge?
Mr. Minor: Remove potential projectiles and board up your home. Understand safe generator use.
Nick: Are there any preparations one should take that will benefit them in the case of a future insurance claim? For example, should a homeowner take pictures or video before leaving their home?
Mr. Minor: Document roof interior, exterior, and contents, including contents in an off site storage, with pictures and video.
Nick: What are your top recommendations to help property owners prepare for a hurricane?
Mr. Minor: TADD (Turn Around, Don’t Drown). There will be a lot of desire to move around the area after the storm. Flooding is a dangerous thing.
I had to look up the TADD acronym submitted by Mr. Minor. Take a look at this video from the NOAA and National Weather Service.
Meteorology & Weather Expert Witness – Michael Mogil
H. Michael Mogil is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist (M.S. Meteorology) with over 40 years of experience, nearly 30 of them with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In addition to working for the National Weather Service as a forecaster, researcher, and severe storm program manager, he also provided satellite training to many governmental agencies and hundreds of TV meteorologists. To learn more about his practice visit: weatherworks.com.
Here are the questions and answers from our meteorology expert:
Nick: Today’s reports putting Hurricane Florence at a Category 4, what type of weather should be expected if it makes landfall as a Category 4 hurricane?
Mr. Mogil: Based on coastal angle of attack, huge storm surge and water push ashore to the north of the storm’s track. To the south of the storm, with winds coming from land to water, water levels will actually drop.
Obviously, heavy to excessive rainfall in advance of landfall, with rain continuing across large parts of the Carolinas and southern Virginia at least through Sunday night (and likely into early next week).
Nick: In your experience, what are the most common types of property damage experienced with a Category 4 hurricane?
Mr. Mogil: From winds, depending upon the type and quality of construction, anything from the loss of many roof tiles or shingles to the actual loss of the roof. Poorly constructed building will be damaged the most. Windows or patio doors, not boarded up, could easily be damaged by flying debris or suffer water intrusion as water is pushed under tracks.
From flying debris (of any type), window or building damage.
Falling trees (due to wind and water-logged soil) a high probability.
Nick: For those in the path of the storm, what do you recommend they do to prepare for the potential landfall?
Mr. Mogil: Listen to instructions of local officials. If one lives near the coast in storm surge inundation area, LEAVE!!!!!!!!! (yes, all those exclamation marks). If one lives in a mobile home or other weakly constructed structure, LEAVE!!!!!!! (more exclamation marks).
Nick: Some reports have indicated the storm may turn and remain at sea as it climbs up the East Coast. Should a citizen still be prepared to evacuate?
Mr. Mogil: Yes, those reports, as of now, are not correct. National Hurricane Center forecasts are the ones to follow. Reliable media sources will convey the NHC forecasts.
Nick: From a meteorological perspective, is there anything you think the public must know as the 2018 Atlantic Hurricane Season heats up?
Mr. Mogil: Today (9/10) is peak day of the season. There are 3 Atlantic storms right now, and only one seems likely to strike the U.S. Treat each storm as its own entity.
Nick: Please feel free to share anything additional that is not covered by the questions…
Mr. Mogil: I’d also say that if people do leave, package important papers (insurance policies, birth certificates, passports) in sealable plastic bags (Glad, Ziplock) and take these as they evacuate or go to shelter.
Charge appliances (cell phones, etc) and get gas before leaving.
Let loved ones in other places know what you are doing.
After the storm, deal with insurance quickly…get an attorney (and have the attorney get one or more experts onboard, if a lawsuit or mediation seems necessary).
There you go! Listen to the experts. Prepare, prepare, prepare! Be safe!
