REVISION 31 HIGHLIGHTS

Make the most of your expert's testimony and expose the flaws in the opposing expert's testimony with Qualifying and Attacking Expert Witnesses. This edition brings you: analysis of case law in the wake of the Daubert Trilogy; discussion of admissibility of scientific evidence in the Roundup®- cancer cases; and insight concerning the utility of frequentist and Bayesian statistical methodologies.

Post-Daubert Trilogy Developments

• Does the Trilogy Liberalize or Restrict Expert Testimony?
• Focus Is on Principles and Methodology, Not Conclusions
• Expert's Lack of Particularized Expertise or Specific Experience
• Expert's Reliance on Peer-Reviewed Journals
• Whether the Expert's Testimony Comes from Research Independent of Litigation
• Expert's Failure to Adhere to Customary Methods
• Where Expert Testimony Based on Experience or Training
• Summary of Key Points Regarding the Daubert Trilogy and Rule 702
• Exemplary Cases and Appellate Decisions

The Roundup® Cancer Lawsuits: a Case Study in Daubert and Daubert-Like Analyses

• The Inconsistent Science
• Roundup® Litigation in California
  • California State Courts Apply the Sargon Analysis
  • The Sargon Hearing
• Roundup® Litigation in Federal Courts
  • Federal Courts Apply the Daubert Standard
  • Problems with Plaintiffs' Expert Evidence
  • Court's Consideration and Analysis of the Evidence
  • Bifurcation of Evidence of Corporate Misconduct
• Summary of Key Points regarding the Roundup® Litigation
• Tips for Mounting a Daubert Challenge and Surviving a Daubert Challenge

Statistical Experts: the Frequentist and Bayesian Varieties

• Frequentist (Classical) Statistics
• PValues, Statistical Significance, and Sample Size
• Applications of Frequentist Statistics
• Bayesian Statistics and Legal Applications
• Summary of Key Points regarding Statistical Evidence