In this section:
© Copyright, 2000 to 2010, by Leonard Bucklin.
Key Benefits of Using Bucklin to Testify
- Experience in Presentation in Court
- Clarity. Clarity. Clarity.
- Ample Credentials. Click on C.V. (Biography) to get the C.V.
Capabilities of Leonard Bucklin
If you thought Texas was big--- Look
at the Upper Prairie States that Bucklin covered for many years. Bucklin has special interest and experience both in Texas and also in the
Upper Prairie States. On many of our contracts we provide there
is no charge for travel time from our main home office to/from certain cities
in Texas or the Upper Prairie States.
Capability 1: Bucklin expresses his opinion and the basis of it in words
that communicate
to the Jury.
Bucklin has had over 30 years of effective presentation of evidence in court. This is evidenced by his election as a Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. The Academy attempts to identify and admit to membership the top 500 trial lawyers in the United States, plus selected trial attorneys in other countries. Membership admission is based on peer evaluation of attorneys and judges. One of the standards is whether all references agree that the proposed fellow is one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States. Recognition of his abilities to communicate is further evidenced by his election by his peers in the Academy to be a Director of the Academy 1990 - 1996.
Capability 2. Bucklin has the ability to Pass the Gatekeeper's Daubert Tests. See the article by Bucklin on this subject at --> Daubert Gatekeeping Tests.
No longer can experts be selected solely on their credentials and ability to communicate. Attorneys must select an expert who is familiar with the court's evidence tests, and willing and able to support his/her analytical approaches in the words that the court is looking for. In Kumho, for example, the court had no doubt about the experts qualifications, but rejected the testimony because of lack of explanation of a proper analytical approach. An expert is no use in court if he/she cannot pass the Gatekeeper tests of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579 (1993), General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 US 136 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct 1167 (1999) and the similar state court cases. Courts now have a responsibility to act as Gatekeepers. The trial court must ensure that an expert's testimony rests on a reliable foundation.
Because expert evidence is almost always crucial to the case, counsel should start thinking of admissibility from the beginning of the litigation. If counsel is using an expert, counsel should select an expert knowledgeable about the Gatekeeper's function, so that the expert expresses his opinion and the basis of it in words that satisfy the Gatekeeper.
Finding a "qualified expert" is no longer enough. Gone are the days when, after an expert is found to be qualified (routine under Rule 702's standards), the testimony would invariably get to the jury. Now trial lawyers, must look beyond the expert’s credentials.
Methodology is now paramount in choosing an expert who can get the trial lawyer through a Daubert style objection. Whether the expert testimony is based on scientific tests and methods, or is based on the expert’s testimony or other specialized knowledge, under Daubert-Joiner-Kumho the trial judge must determine if the analytical approach the expert took in reaching the opinions and conclusions is sufficiently reliable. If there is "too great an analytical gap" between the underlying data and the expert’s conclusions (such as in Joiner), the trial judge may reject the proposed testimony. If the expert’s analytical approach appears flawed (such as in Daubert and Kumho Tire), the proposed testimony can be rejected. So choose an expert who knows how to state his/her method properly and clearly.
Click Here to Get the
Contact Page.