Professor Imwinkelried Quoted in Bloomberg Law Reports on Expert Witness Appointment

Professor Edward Imwinkelried is quoted in a Bloomberg Law report on court appointment of expert witnesses.  Two parts of what will ultimately be a three-part report have been released, and both quote Professor Imwinkelried. 

Professor Imwinkelried explained why, in the past, American trial judges have been so reluctant to appoint "neutral" experts.  He also discussed a proposal for more limited appointments under Federal Rule of Evidence 706.  Traditionally, the courts have appointed experts to essentially duplicate the analysis of the parties' experts and opine on the ultimate issue dividing the parties' experts.  However, Imwinkelried explained that Rule 706 permits the trial judge to appoint experts for the more limited purpose of providing the judge and jury with a primer on the basics in the field.  That information would enable the factfinder to decide which partisan expert was extrapolating too far or taking a position at odds with settled propositions in the discipline. 

Imwinkelried added that in his experience, many of the most scrupulous experts are reluctant to accept appointments because of the combative nature of litigation; they realize that if they are required to opine on the ultimate issue, they are likely to be aggressively attacked at trial.  A more limited appointment would make the appointment more attractive to some of the very best experts who now routinely refuse to accept appointments.

The report is appearing in Bloomberg Law's Class Action Litigation Report, Expert Evidence Report, Toxic Law Reporter, and U.S. Law Week.