It’s up to the lawyers to define what actually supports a “reasonable degree of certainty” and to elicit testimony supporting such a finding in order to ensure admissibility. The best an expert witness can do is offer their opinion based on proper data, analysis, and methodology, as informed by their education and experience. There’s no general consensus about the precise meaning of the phrase, even across legal jurisdictions. Code § 8.01-399(B) provides that a medical diagnosis is only admissible if it was offered to a “reasonable degree of medical probability.” A number of Virginia courts have used the same standard when evaluating the admissibility of an expert’s opinions. To the chagrin of NCFS and other professionals, some courts do require expert opinions to be supported by a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” or a “reasonable degree of scientific probability” to be admissible. ![]() Some Jurisdictions Use a “Reasonable Degree of Certainty” or “Reasonable Degree of Probability” Standard A “reasonable degree of medical certainty” is a legal term of art that appears to have arisen as a flourish of speech, rather than a legal standard. In practice, scientists will either refer to a specific degree of certainty about a relationship or outcome– e.g., “The results of the DNA test place the probability of paternity at 99.99%” –, refer to a low margin of error, or simply express the personal confidence of the scientist. When pressed, most of those surveyed defined “reasonable certainty” as a greater than 90% chance that their claim was true, i.e., a low margin of error. A 2015 study conducted by the Penn State College of Medicine, for example, found that only 37% of the surveyed medical experts were comfortable with defining the term “reasonable degree of medical certainty,” even though 95% had testified in court. Medical experts shy away from such terminology where possible. According to the statement: “edical professionals and other scientists do not routinely use ‘to a reasonable scientific certainty’ whenĮxpressing conclusions outside of the courts since there is no foundational scientific basis for its use.” They go on to assert that “such terms have no scientific meaning and may mislead jurors or judges when deciding whether guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” The National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) issued a statement on the phrase “reasonable scientific certainty.” They advised scientific experts not to use the phrase and asked legal professionals to refrain from doing so as well. Scientific Experts Do Not Like the Phrase “Reasonable Degree of Certainty” The federal rules of evidence do not directly ask the expert to state an opinion to a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” Instead, the expert’s testimony must be based on data, obtained and analyzed using proper methodology, which is then properly applied to the matter at bar. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |