Cross-examination exposes novel expert testimony as unverified reading rather than tested method

Evidence

Standing in the well of the courtroom, before a gallery of only half a dozen spectators, he asked if Braids had looked at old aerial photographs, old maps, or collected any tannery records—any documentation at all—to determine the history of the Beatrice site. No, admitted Braids. Had Braids ever done this sort of work before, with microbiology and the degradation of chemicals? No, he had not, but he had read “a few articles in professional journals” about the subject. Did these articles say how long it would take for microorganisms to break down TCE? No, said Braids, they didn’t. Could Braids describe the exact mechanism by which these soil bugs broke down TCE? Braids wasn’t sure of the mechanism. “It’s not in my field. I’m only acquainted with it to the extent that I’ve read papers about it.” — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action, 2106

Categorization

• SEED: An essay on the ‘state of the art’ defense: how first-ever, unpublished scientific methods get laundered through a courtroom into authoritative fact.
• XREF: connects to: Nervous, inexperienced expert witnesses read as more honest to juries — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action , 1414; Diagnostic tests whose results require expert interpretation are vulnerable to being dismissed as divination — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action , 1445; Cross-examination can make true testimony appear false to a jury. — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action , 2067 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• An exposed expert improvises untestable mechanisms rather than concede error #expands (0.95) — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action, 2198
• Questioning expert witnesses’ expertise or incentives is fair game in cross-examination #qualifies (0.90) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1052
• Psychiatric investigation produces plausible stories, not verifiable truth #corroborates (0.85) — Hilary Mantel, A Memoir of My Former Self- A Life in…, 497
• Challenging expert claims requires refusing the expert’s framing language entirely #complicates (0.80) — The Friends of Attention, Attensity!, 148
• Coupling buried scholarship with disqualified knowledges gives critique its strength #complicates (0.80) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 27
• Selective evidence can mislead juries about the case’s credibility. #complicates (0.75) — Lynley Hood, A City Possessed, 2644
• Scholarly evidentiary standards could annul an ancestor’s living testimony #complicates (0.75) — Tamara Lanier, From These Roots, 266
• Knowledge of logical canons enables the detection of misleading legal arguments #complicates (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 97