My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7623
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7623
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:30 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 11:01:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7623
Author
Lamb, B. L. and D. A. Sweetman.
Title
Guidelines for Preparing Expert Testimony in Water Management Decisions Related to Instream Flow Issues.
USFW Year
1979.
USFW - Doc Type
Instream Flow Information Paper No. 1, Revised,
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Q. No comment? <br />A. No. <br />Q. Are you able to comment, for example, with <br />respect to page 3,04 and let's say, for example, the <br />Mamaron data which shows residues, if you allow a <br />subjective judgement, for example, in 1967, a <br />fairly constant rate throughout the year and tell <br />us whether or not that indicates to you that these <br />are agricultural or non-agricultural sources? <br />A. No, I have no basis for comment. <br />Q. Let's go back to page 243 and notice in the <br />next column of Table 5 that Georgia is the state <br />reflecting the maximum value in PPB. Are you able <br />to comment about that? <br />A. No, I am not. <br />Q. If you will turn to the Georgia section and <br />particularly the Lazareth Creek data, Station <br />Number 1, for example; are you able to advise us as <br />to the existence of one or more wool treatment <br />plants on this creek? <br />A. No, I am not. <br />To some people, giving testimony as an expert witness is a challenging <br />experience which starts the adrenalin pumping and prompts an attempt to answer <br />all questions which are posed. A good lawyer will endeavor to draw an expert <br />away from his area of expertise to a topic on which the witness knows enough <br />to want to answer the questions but not enough to avoid being trapped. The <br />witness also can be led into this unfortunate situation by a client and lawyer <br />who wish to prove a point by forcing the witness to "expand a little upon this <br />expertise." The example which follows is of a witness who rose to bait offered <br />by the interrogator. The witness, who was a chemist, had just presented data <br />on the runoff of pesticides from a cornfield during a heavy rain. (Rogers <br />1974:17-18). <br />Q. Over the course of five years, Doctor, how <br />many days would you expect that kind of rainfall to <br />occur of that intensity? Did you have any way of <br />making an estimate? Iowa weather? <br />A. Yes, I could make an estimate. <br />Q. Out of five years, what would your estimate <br />be? <br />A. Well, I won't be numerical. <br />18
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.