Laserfiche WebLink
<br /><c <br /> <br />( . <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />l( <br /> <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />'\ <br />\ <br />\ <br />l <br /> <br />~~~._---_..- <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />usually can only be defended because <br />they were obtained by the application <br />of an accepted scientific method. <br />There is no such thing as an exact <br />science nor is there a theoretical <br />basis for the sciences. The only <br />rules of science that are without <br />exceptions are those that are true by <br />definition or by some other exercise <br />in circular reasoning. Lawyers should <br />also realize that because science is <br />ultimately based on personal judgement, <br />it cannot be objective. <br /> <br />B. <br /> <br />On the other hand, some scientists <br />lose sight of (or may even resent) <br />the subordinate role that they and <br />their discipline must play in the <br />courtroom. They feel ill-at-ease <br />with the requirement that evidence <br />must be given by questions and answers <br />rather than with a narrative of their <br />own authorship and may feel that their <br />testimony has lost precision due to <br />the methods of the court. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4. Clearly, what is needed is a modus operandi <br />that will insure good communication and <br />close rapport between the expert witness <br />and counsel. Such a collaboration <br />coordinates and focuses the precision of <br />the scientist and the legal skill of the <br />attorney on the case at hand. The process <br />outlined below has consistently produced <br />this close teamwork between attorneys and <br />myself. <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />a <br />