In a criminal case, a slim majority of the United States Supreme Court has upheld the right of a criminal defendant to confront her or his accusers under the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (U.S. Case No. 07-591, Opinion Filed June 25, 2009). In this typically long opinion, the focus of the Court's ruling was on "testimonial statements" by crime lab experts that accompany reports used in criminal trials. Id.
This case was decided under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution, as noted. However, this is the same United States Supreme Court that re-ordered the reception and admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony in Federal Courts, of course. Its decisions in the arena of Expert Witness Opinions have been followed by many State Courts as well. Will this new decision find application in the field of Expert Witness Testimony in civil cases? In particular, how will this new decision by the highest Court in the land affect the admissibility of Expert Witness Opinions in Insurance and Insurance Bad Faith cases?
Time will tell.
Note: The Author is frequently retained as an Expert Witness in Insurance cases including Claims Handling, Coverage, and Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments