expert challenge in Kansas

2016Reliability, relevance, and helpfulness to thejwy Second, the court “‘must satisfy itself that the proposed expert testimony is both rehable and relevant, in that it will assist the trier of fact, before permitting a jury to assess such testimony.’” Nacchio, 555 F.3d at 1241 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez-Felix, 450 F.3d 1117, 1122 [10th Cir. 2006]).

2016The parties in this case do not dispute Dr. Kress' qualifications as an expert or challenge the district court's finding that Dr. Kress was qualified as an expert in ergonomics under this rule. 11 Reliability, relevance, and helpfulness to the jury Second, the court "'must satisfy itself that the proposed expert testimony is both reliable and relevant, in that it will assist the trier of fact, before permitting a jury to assess such testimony.'" Nacchio, 555 F.3d at 1241 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez- Felix, 450 F.3d 1117, 1122 [10th Cir. 2006]).

2021In other words, the "'focus . . . must be solely on 10 principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.'" 311 Kan. at 28 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595 ).

2016Helpfulness to the trier of fact is determined by evaluating whether the testimony is relevant and whether the "'methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.'" Summers, 132 F.3d at 603 .

2012App. 2d 634 , 111 P.3d 636 (2003), another Court of Appeals panel again examined a K.S.A. 60-1507’s movant’s allegation drat his lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to call an expert to challenge the child interview method used in the State’s investigation, but the panel reached a different result.

2011Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that it was error for the district court to have dismissed the indictments, in spite of the fact that the prosecutor committed multiple errors throughout the grand jury proceedings, including administering unauthorized oaths to IRS agents; allowing IRS agents to give misleading and inaccurate summaries of testimony to the grand jury; abusing an expert defense witness in the presence of some grand jurors; granting “pocket immunity” to 23 grand jury witnesses; and permitting two IRS agents to appear before the grand juiy at the same time. 487 U.S. at 260-63 .

2011In determining the prejudicial effect of these actions, the Supreme Court noted that the incidents “occurred as isolated episodes” over the course of a long investigation involving dozens of witnesses and thousands of documents. 487 U.S. at 263 .

2008At trial, the State presented testimony from a nurse who said that the victim’s physical examination was normal but that research, never identified to the jury, demonstrated that “ ‘physical indications of anal penetration were not present in 60 to 80 percent of the children sodomized.’ ” See Mullins, 30 Kan.

2006In State v. Brooks, 217 Kan. 485 , Syl. ¶ 1, 536 P.2d 1365 (1975), this court stated that when K.S.A. 60-456(b) is read in conjunction with K.S.A. 60-458, an expert witness may state his or her opinion without first specifying the data on which the opinion is based when within the scope of the expert’s special knowledge, skill, experience, or training, and when based on facts or data perceived by or personally known or made known to the expert at the hearing.

2006In State v. Brooks, 217 Kan. 485 , Syl. ¶ 1, 536 P.2d 1365 (1975), this court stated that when K.S.A. 60-456(b) is read in conjunction with K.S.A. 60-458, an expert witness may state his or her opinion without first specifying the data on which the opinion is based when within the scope of the expert’s special knowledge, skill, experience, or training, and when based on facts or data perceived by or personally known or made known to the expert at the hearing.

2006Kaiser cites Humphrey, 252 Kan. 6 , for its authority that Dr. Logan’s expert testimony was admissible, but the opinion offers no assistance in explaining how the Kaiser court arrived at its decision where Dr. Logan relied upon information from other sources.

1936In that case it was further held: “Where there is a conflict of testimony as to the nervous condition of the plaintiff, hypothetical questions can be properly framed along either line of such disputed condition, and the failure to include in the questions the theory maintained by the defendant and supported by the testimony of an expert is not error.” (Syl. ¶ 3.) A recent and quite similar case, except that the injury received when a loaded freight elevator in a packing plant fell six floors contributed to and aggravated an infection, instead of being the beginning of the trouble as in this ca

1936In that case it was further held: “Where there is a conflict of testimony as to the nervous condition of the plaintiff, hypothetical questions can be properly framed along either line of such disputed condition, and the failure to include in the questions the theory maintained by the defendant and supported by the testimony of an expert is not error.” (Syl. ¶ 3.) A recent and quite similar case, except that the injury received when a loaded freight elevator in a packing plant fell six floors contributed to and aggravated an infection, instead of being the beginning of the trouble as in this ca