expert defense in Washington

2010In Charles, the court stated that the expert requirement was not met when two experienced social workers without "specialized knowledge of social or cultural aspects of Indian life" testified for the State in support of foster care placement. 688 P.2d at 1360.

2010In Charles, the court stated that the expert requirement was not met when two experienced social workers without “specialized knowledge of social or cultural aspects of Indian life” testified for the State in support of foster care placement. 688 P.2d at 1360.

2013See Stedman v. Cooper, 172 Wn.

2013See Stedman v. Cooper, 172 Wn.

2019The party seeking to introduce the expert testimony must show it complies with ER 703.12 In State v. Hamilton, the State sought to impeach an expert defense witness on cross-examination by asking questions about the defendant's medical 7 ER 802. 8 Coe, 175 Wn.2d at 505 . 9 Matter of Det. of Marshall, 156 Wn.2d 150 , 161, 162, 125 P.3d 111 (2005); ER 703. 1° Coe, 175 Wn.2d at 516 (Chambers, J. concurring); see Marshall, 156 Wn.2d at 162-63 ("However, it does not follow that such a witness may simply report such matters to the trier of fact: The Rule was not designed to enable a witness to summa

2019The party seeking to introduce the expert testimony must show it complies with ER 703.12 In State v. Hamilton, the State sought to impeach an expert defense witness on cross-examination by asking questions about the defendant's medical 7 ER 802. 8 Coe, 175 Wn.2d at 505 . 9 Matter of Det. of Marshall, 156 Wn.2d 150 , 161, 162, 125 P.3d 111 (2005); ER 703. 1° Coe, 175 Wn.2d at 516 (Chambers, J. concurring); see Marshall, 156 Wn.2d at 162-63 ("However, it does not follow that such a witness may simply report such matters to the trier of fact: The Rule was not designed to enable a witness to summa

2019The party seeking to introduce the expert testimony must show it complies with ER 703.12 In State v. Hamilton, the State sought to impeach an expert defense witness on cross-examination by asking questions about the defendant's medical 7 ER 802. 8 Coe, 175 Wn.2d at 505 . 9 Matter of Det. of Marshall, 156 Wn.2d 150 , 161, 162, 125 P.3d 111 (2005); ER 703. 1° Coe, 175 Wn.2d at 516 (Chambers, J. concurring); see Marshall, 156 Wn.2d at 162-63 ("However, it does not follow that such a witness may simply report such matters to the trier of fact: The Rule was not designed to enable a witness to summa

2019The party seeking to introduce the expert testimony must show it complies with ER 703.12 In State v. Hamilton, the State sought to impeach an expert defense witness on cross-examination by asking questions about the defendant's medical 7 ER 802. 8 Coe, 175 Wn.2d at 505 . 9 Matter of Det. of Marshall, 156 Wn.2d 150 , 161, 162, 125 P.3d 111 (2005); ER 703. 1° Coe, 175 Wn.2d at 516 (Chambers, J. concurring); see Marshall, 156 Wn.2d at 162-63 ("However, it does not follow that such a witness may simply report such matters to the trier of fact: The Rule was not designed to enable a witness to summa

2019The party seeking to introduce the expert testimony must show it complies with ER 703.12 In State v. Hamilton, the State sought to impeach an expert defense witness on cross-examination by asking questions about the defendant's medical 7 ER 802. 8 Coe, 175 Wn.2d at 505 . 9 Matter of Det. of Marshall, 156 Wn.2d 150 , 161, 162, 125 P.3d 111 (2005); ER 703. 1° Coe, 175 Wn.2d at 516 (Chambers, J. concurring); see Marshall, 156 Wn.2d at 162-63 ("However, it does not follow that such a witness may simply report such matters to the trier of fact: The Rule was not designed to enable a witness to summa

2019App. 461, 478, 481 , 383 P.3d 1062 (2016)("Mile party seeking to impeach an expert witness pursuant to ER 703 and ER 705 has the burden of demonstrating that the expert, in formulating his or her opinion, relied on the facts or data proffered by the impeaching party."). 5 No. 77287-2-1/6 records and the information in them.13 The expert testified he had reviewed the records but had not relied on them because his ultimate opinion was not based on them.14 As a result, this court held the information from the medical records was inadmissible under ER 703.15 Similarly, here, the State never establ

2018App. 1034 (1987), as its own). l-lere, Welch received an expert report on Aprii 25, 2014, indicating that the intersection where the accident occurred provided a line of sight that was below safety standards We|ch argues that his cause of action against the City did not accrue until he received this expert analysis Under this theory, the statute of limitations in a negligence action could always be tolied until the plaintiff meets with an expert that advises a cause of action is available On appeal, Weich cites no authority supporting such an extension of the statute of limitations in personal

2010As one court said, the defense should not be "able to manipulate" the requirement that discovery take place in a federal facility in accord with 18 U.S.C. "§ 3509(m) by merely positing conceptual difficulties to be encountered at government facilities, or mere preferences to use their own." United States v. Flinn, 521 F.Supp.2d 1097, 1102 (E.D.Cal.2007).