ICTM has found that many attorneys and judges experience difficulty distinguishing expert opinions which are speculative from those which are solidly-founded in scientific fact. Often times, conjecture is accepted as readily as fact-based opinion because it came from an "expert." [More]

How experts misuse scientific literature A critical element of Daubert, specifically stated, is that scientific literature used by experts to support their opinions must be relevant (or, fit) the situation extant in the case. Frequently, experts provide such “support” with long biblio... [More]

Attorneys have recently attempted to confuse medical/scientific witnesses by asserting that legal certainty is less rigorous than scientific certainty, therefore, implying that courts do not require meeting a scientific certainty burden. [More]