Latest news with #expertwitness
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
AM Best to Host Webinar on the Qualities That Make Expert Witnesses Effective
OLDWICK, N.J., July 21, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--AM Best and Best's Insurance Professional Resources will host a complimentary webinar, titled, "The Effective Expert Witness," sponsored by Nuzzo & Roberts, L.L.C., on Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. (EDT). Register today. In this webinar, a panel will explore the background, certifications, credentials and characteristics that attorneys seek when retaining expert witnesses. Panelists include: Richard A. Roberts, partner, Nuzzo & Roberts, L.L.C.; Sarah Burton, Ph.D., litigation consultant, Courtroom Sciences, Inc.; Christopher Konzelmann, partner, chair, subrogation department, White and Williams LLP; and Janine McCartney, Ph.D., MBA, CSP, CHST, CSHO, senior safety engineer/expert witness, HHC Safety Engineering Services, Inc., HHC Safety Consulting Services, Corporation Attendees can submit questions during registration or by emailing webinars@ Playback will be available shortly afterward. Those unable to attend the live webinar can still register to receive the playback to view at their convenience. AM Best is a global credit rating agency, news publisher and data analytics provider specializing in the insurance industry. Headquartered in the United States, the company does business in over 100 countries with regional offices in London, Amsterdam, Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore and Mexico City. For more information, visit Copyright © 2025 by A.M. Best Company, Inc. and/or its affiliates. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. View source version on Contacts Lee McDonald Senior Vice President, Publication & News Services +1 908 882 2102 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Guardian
18-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Solicitors must ensure they choose the right expert witnesses in trials
In your case study (Expert witnesses are 'weakest link in English justice system', says wrongly convicted surgeon, 15 June), David Sellu suggests that there are no 'prescribed training programmes' for expert witnesses to ensure that the evidence they give is unbiased, high-quality and follows all legal procedures. In fact, Bond Solon, mentioned in your main article on this subject (Politicians, lawyers and doctors express concern over use of expert witnesses in English courts, 15 June), has for more than 30 years ensured that there is proper training available, so experts know how to construct a court-compliant report, conduct a proper investigation and comply with court rules. Tens of thousands of experts have been trained since, and have attended university-certified programmes. Other providers have followed suit. There are hundreds of cases every year where experts have been involved without any problems, and many experts have assisted by giving evidence to overturn wrong convictions. Suggesting expert witnesses are the weakest link in the system is perhaps unfair. Solicitors must exercise due diligence in the selection and instruction of experts to make sure that they have the right expert for the issues in dispute and that any expert they instruct is aware of the full extent of their legal obligations. Experts can be cross-examined on their qualifications and experience, and judges can determine whether their evidence is admissible. The whole process must run smoothly, so it is not just experts who should be under SolonChairman, Wilmington Legal; founder, Bond Solon Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Sun
16-06-2025
- The Sun
I'm a wrongly convicted medic just like Lucy Letby – phony ‘experts' were negligent
A FORMER medic has claimed they were wrongly convicted, like Lucy Letby, alleging that phoney "experts" were negligent. David Sellu spent 15 months behind bars after being convicted of gross negligence manslaughter in 2013. 4 4 4 The former surgeon's trial relied heavily on evidence from medical expert witnesses called by the prosecution. However, in 2016, Sellu's conviction was quashed on appeal after the judge criticised how the expert evidence had been presented and handled. The judge noted that the experts had "asserted gross negligence" — a judgment that should have been left to the jury, not the experts. The ex-medical professional said: "It worries me that there will be miscarriages of justice from expert testimony. "As recently as the case of Lucy Letby, expert testimony is still being questioned." Former neonatal nurse Letby, now 34, was jailed for life last year for murdering seven infants and attempting to murder six others between 2015 and 2016 at the Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester. During her ten-month trial, which ended last August when she received a whole life sentence, it was revealed she injected her victims with air or insulin, overfed them and physically abused them with medical tools. An application to appeal against her sentence was rejected in February of this year. She was convicted across two trials at Manchester Crown Court of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others. The 35-year-old from Hereford is serving 15 whole-life orders. She lost two attempts to challenged her convictions at the Court of Appeal last year. Sellu was convicted over the death of a man at a private hospital in 2010, after the patient became seriously ill following knee surgery. Witnesses claimed the patient's condition deteriorated due to delays in treatment, which they attributed to the former surgeon. The now-exonerated doctor said he believes expert witnesses need proper training to ensure their evidence is unbiased and follows legal procedures. Sellu added: "There should be a benchmark that expert witnesses must achieve, because they are such an important bridge between medicine and the law in terms of being able to deliver justice." The former surgeon argued that expert witnesses play a vital role in the justice system, yet pose a risk due to a lack of training and unclear selection processes. Expert witnesses are used in most criminal trials, but are crucial in medical cases where jurors may struggle to understand complex terminology. There is little oversight of how these witnesses are appointed, despite some guidance being provided by the Crown Prosecution Service. This can cause serious problems as miscarriages of justice can occur when expert evidence is given which is biased, incorrect or unreliable. The charges Letby was convicted on in full hild A, allegation of murder. The Crown said Letby injected air intravenously into the bloodstream of the baby boy. COUNT 1 GUILTY. Child B, allegation of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby attempted to murder the baby girl, the twin sister of Child A, by injecting air into her bloodstream. COUNT 2 GUILTY. Child C, allegation of murder. Prosecutors said Letby forced air down a feeding tube and into the stomach of the baby boy. COUNT 3 GUILTY. Child D, allegation of murder. The Crown said air was injected intravenously into the baby girl. COUNT 4 GUILTY. Child E, allegation of murder. The Crown said Letby murdered the twin baby boy with an injection of air into the bloodstream and also deliberately caused bleeding to the infant. COUNT 5 GUILTY. Child F, allegation of attempted murder. Letby was said by prosecutors to have poisoned the twin brother of Child E with insulin. COUNT 6 GUILTY. Child G, three allegations of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby targeted the baby girl by overfeeding her with milk and pushing air down her feeding tube. COUNT 7 GUILTY, COUNT 8 GUILTY, COUNT 9 NOT GUILTY. Child H, two allegations of attempted murder. Prosecutors said Letby sabotaged the care of the baby girl in some way which led to two profound oxygen desaturations. COUNT 10 NOT GUILTY, COUNT 11 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT. Child I, allegation of murder. The prosecution said Letby killed the baby girl at the fourth attempt and had given her air and overfed her with milk. COUNT 12 GUILTY. Child J, allegation of attempted murder. No specific form of harm was identified by the prosecution but they said Letby did something to cause the collapse of the baby girl. COUNT 13 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT. Child K, allegation of attempted murder. The prosecution said Letby compromised the baby girl as she deliberately dislodged a breathing tube. COUNT 14 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT. Child L, allegation of attempted murder. The Crown said the nurse poisoned the twin baby boy with insulin. COUNT 15 GUILTY. Child M, allegation of attempted murder. Prosecutors said Letby injected air into the bloodstream of Child L's twin brother. COUNT 16 GUILTY. Child N, three allegations of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby inflicted trauma in the baby boy's throat and also injected him with air in the bloodstream. COUNT 17 GUILTY, COUNT 18 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT, COUNT 19 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT. Child O, allegation of murder. Prosecutors say Letby attacked the triplet boy by injecting him with air, overfeeding him with milk and inflicting trauma to his liver with "severe force". COUNT 20 GUILTY. Child P, allegation of murder. Prosecutors said the nurse targeted the triplet brother of Child O by overfeeding him with milk, injecting air and dislodging his breathing tube. COUNT 21 GUILTY. Child Q, allegation of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby injected the baby boy with liquid, and possibly air, down his feeding tube. COUNT 22 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT. 4
The Guardian
15-06-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Expert witnesses are ‘weakest link in English justice system', says wrongly convicted surgeon
David Sellu knows full well the impact an expert witness can have on the outcome of criminal case, and the lives of the people on trial. A former surgeon, Sellu spent 15 months in prison after being convicted of gross negligence manslaughter in 2013, following a trial that largely hinged on the evidence of medical expert witnesses brought by the prosecution. After an appeal in 2016, Sellu's conviction was quashed and the appeal judge criticised the way the expert evidence was handled, saying they 'asserted gross negligence' when this was 'a matter for [the jury] and not the experts'. 'I think I can probably say that there are many, many hundreds of people who would not be alive today had it not been for my skills and my treatment,' Sellu said. 'And yet medicine was deprived of my further input, purely on the back of a case that should never have been brought. 'It's affected my whole family, we've gone through a very difficult time. But we've come out of it all. We're carrying on as best we can.' He now speaks out about the issues with expert witnesses, particularly in cases involving medical professionals where the subjects being examined are often highly complex and expert witnesses act at the 'crucial bridge' between medicine and the law. 'My case was in 2015, it is now 2025 and I don't really believe that much has changed. It worries me that there will be miscarriages of justice from expert testimony,' Sellu said. 'As recently as the case of Lucy Letby, expert testimony is still being questioned.' Sellu was convicted over the death of a man at a private hospital in 2010 who suddenly fell ill after knee surgery. The patient's condition deteriorated due to delays to his care, which expert witnesses said amounted to gross negligence by Sellu. The exonerated doctor said he remained alarmed that there were no 'prescribed training programmes' for expert witnesses to ensure the evidence they give is unbiased, high quality and follows all legal procedure. 'There should be a benchmark that expert witnesses must achieve, because they are such an important bridge between medicine and the law in terms of being able to deliver justice,' he said. 'In my view, they are the weakest link in our justice system. They're not accredited, not properly trained, nobody really knows clearly how they're selected. And they play such a vital role in the delivery of justice that I think it's a shame that nobody has really grappled with this issue to try to get it fixed.' Expert witnesses are used in almost all criminal trials, but are particularly crucial in medical cases where a jury would struggle to understand and interpret complex terminology. They are appointed by both prosecution and defence lawyers, and although there is guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service, there is little oversight over how expert witnesses are appointed and what checks are carried out. One defence barrister said that lawyers often 'don't ask the questions' about the experts they're hiring, and 'work on the premise that people who are purporting to hold themselves out as experts, are experts'. Sellu said: 'The words 'expert witness' are a bit of a misnomer, because they're neither experts nor are they witnesses. Anybody can put themselves up as an expert witness, there's no clear accreditation. 'And they are the only people in the trial who give evidence who were not there at the time the alleged events took place – they're not witnesses, they're simply giving opinions.' In 2021 a judge asked the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate an eminent psychiatrist, Dr David Ho, who had been used by prosecutors as an expert witness in a large number of cases, after concerns were raised about him during a murder trial. In the case of a man accused of beheading his mother, who was found not guilty of manslaughter on the basis of insanity, defence lawyers said there were apparent errors in Ho's report and he allegedly refused to answer questions. Ho had concluded there was no evidence to suggest the defendant did not know what he was doing, a finding that was disputed by other consultant forensic psychiatrists. The judge said there was concerns that Ho 'had potentially lost the necessary degree of independence and objectivity, his awareness of his overriding duty to the court, and his approach to his task'. The CPS said an internal review had been carried out, and Dr Ho had not been used as an expert witness since. There have been a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice linked to inadequate medical expert evidence. Three men found guilty of murder in 1998 had their convictions quashed due to 'discredited' evidence by pathologist Dr Michael Heath, whose findings were questioned in a string of cases. Despite the concerns around the veracity of his work, he continued to practise and was under investigation by the General Medical Council at the time of his death in 2023. In the 1990s, evidence by paediatrician Sir Roy Meadow led to several wrongful convictions of mothers for murdering their babies. Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings were all exonerated after evidence by Meadows, used as an expert witness by the prosecution, was proven incorrect. He misused statistics to convince a jury it was almost impossible for more than one sudden infant death to occur in the same family, and that it was much more likely to be murder. 'There is a real danger with expert evidence, because it is elevated evidence, so when it's wrong, it can lead to wrongful convictions and that's a real concern,' said Matt Foot, co-director of Appeal, which supported Sellu's case. 'Where the problem comes, and it has happened in many miscarriages of justice, is when expert evidence is given that is biased, inappropriate, or completely unreliable. 'Experts are not there for the police or the prosecution. They can feel obliged to provide evidence in a certain way when their duty is to the court for independence rather than to any party. That's the biggest danger, I think, because that danger leads to innocent people going to prison.' Expert witnesses are often also crucial in overturning miscarriages of justice, he said, but greater regulation or oversight would be beneficial. 'When things go wrong, there is no proper record anywhere that it has happened, and that you therefore need to treat this expert with great caution,' said Foot. 'That's not part of the system. So there are no safeguards in place to stop that happening again, with the same person.'
The Guardian
15-06-2025
- The Guardian
What is the role of an expert witness and how are they used in English courts?
Senior politicians, lawyers and doctors have warned that a lack of regulation over the use of expert witnesses in English courts could be leading to miscarriages of justice. But what is an expert witness and who gets to be one? An expert witness is someone who has specialised knowledge in a particular field, and appears in court to provide an objective and impartial opinion to help those involved in a case, such as a judge or jury, understand a particular issue. Expert witnesses can be useful to magistrates and juries in helping them to determine the issues in a criminal case, including whether a defendant is guilty or innocent. They are used in many aspects of civil law, and different experts have been used to provide evidence on everything from medical issues and forensics to construction and engineering. A solicitor or legal team will choose an expert with the necessary qualifications and experience in their relevant field, and it is ultimately up to a court to decide whether they can appear as a witness. However, there is no regulatory body that governs expert witnesses, and there are concerns that someone who wants to appear as a witness can 'self-appoint' and declare themselves to be an expert in a particular area. Sometimes solicitors will contact someone directly who they believe may have expertise in a particular area. There are also listing sites where experts can register and these private companies will connect lawyers to people in various fields, including forensics and medical specialists. Some agencies offer 'urgent quotes within the hour'. Rates can vary hugely, with fees varying between the type of expert and the type of case. Some will be paid less than £100 an hour in legal aid cases, but fees for others will be much more. In criminal prosecutions, the crown must provide defence teams with access to all material that is capable of undermining the prosecution case, including expert opinions. However, there is no requirement on the defence to do the same. In civil litigation, there is also a legal obligation for parties to share any relevant documents or other information that could support or undermine their case.
