Английскй учебник

Q: What did you do after that?

A: I stayed on the staff at Bellevue for five years, and then joined their Emergency Medicine group. I practiced there for almost twenty years, but the pace of the Emergency room became too much for me, so I joined the surgical staff of the Hempstead Hospital on Long Island. I am still on staff there. Q: Do you hold any state licenses?

A: Yes. I am licensed to practice medicine by the state of New York. Q: Are you a member of any medical societies?

A: Yes. The A.M.A., the New York State Medical Society, the Nassau County Medical Society, and Concerned Physicians for Peace in the Middle East.

Q: Do you have experience with anaesthesiology?

A: Yes. When I was at Bellevue, most of my practice was anaesthesiology. At Hempstead I did mostly general surgery, but of course, the surgeon must work closely with the anaesthesiologist.

Q: Have you ever testified as an expert witness before? A: Yes, several times.

Q: Do you have any experience reviewing other doctors’ work?

A: Yes. I was on the peer review committee of Hempstead Hospital from 1987 to 1995, that was in charge of reviewing complaints against staff doctors.

Q: What kinds of cases did you review?

A: All kinds, but mostly they were cases where a patient had suffered serious complications following surgery.

Q: Counting both your experience on the peer review committee and your consulting work, about how many cases of suspected medical malpractice have you investigated?

A: Around two hundred.

8. .

1.What branch of science is Lionel Thompson specialized in?

2.What have you learned about his educational level?

3.What was his major in the undergraduate course?

4.Where did he get his Doctor Degree?

5.What did he do after graduating from New York University?

6.Did he have enough experience as an expert witness?

7.How many cases did he review?

8.Do you think that the judge was satisfied with his qualifications as an expert?

9..

1.Who can be an expert witness?

2.What are the requirements for an expert witness?

3.How can an expert witness reach his/her goals?

4.What is the right of an expert witness?

5.What should an expert witness remember when testifying?

TEXT

Regardless of one's role in an investigation, no one can accurately claim to be an expert witness by profession. Expert witnesses, by law, can only be declared such by a judge. There are experts who are not scientists; for example, experts in office design, river rafting, school bus driving, fashion design, art history, or scuba diving. Of course, there are also experts in the natural sciences and medicine, as well as those with forensic practices. But only the court creates expert witnesses. Forensic scientists first and foremost must remain scientists. Those practicing forensic medicine

291

remain, first and foremost, medical professionals. Forensic scientists and forensic pathologists may or may not be declared expert witnesses by the court.

Expert witnesses are perceived very differently from lay witnesses, both by the law and by the public. It gives you some rights and advantages but imparts added responsibilities. Juries will forgive fear, nervousness, and some confusion in a lay witness, but experts don’t impress much if they show those conditions.

There are three requirements for an expert witness:

a)The witness must qualify as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education greater than the average layperson in the area of his or her testimony.

b)The expert must testify to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. The reliability of the testimony is based on valid reasoning and a reliable methodology, as opposed to subjective observations or speculative conclusions.

c)The expert’s testimony must assist the trier of fact, i.e., be relevant to the task of the judge or the jury to understand the evidence or determine disputed facts.

The goal of the expert witness is to communicate to the judge and jury. The single most important way to do this is to use plain language, thereby avoiding what appears to be the hypertechnical language of science.

The expert has a right to state an opinion and give the supporting data and reasons for it, testify in narrative form rather than question and answer (though some judges won’t allow narrative), demand to see and examine any published texts being used to cross-examine you, and refuse to state your opinion until you have been compensated.

Testifying is a chance to teach some receptive folks about our very interesting work. Remember this: 1. you know more about the subject than the lawyer does, 2. juries like scientists more than they like lawyers.

10.#' $ .

EXPERT WITNESS

ADVANTAGES REQUIREMENTS THE GOAL OVER

LAWYERS

292

13. .

An expert is someone knowing more and more

about less and less, eventually knowing everything about nothing.

Attributed to Sir Bernard Spillsbury, MD

Neither natural scientists nor forensic scientists start from theories or laws when facing the need to explain some puzzling phenomenon. They start from data. And not from commonplace data, but from the surprising anomalies raising the puzzles requiring explanation. Unusual observations suggest explanatory connections to pursue and test. Such connections define evidence, and distinguish data that are evidence from data that remains merely coincidental. In that effort, the natural scientist and the forensic scientist share a fundamental approach belying any simplistic distinction between real science and forensic science.

Usually scientific or other experts offered by attorneys to the court as potential expert witnesses give opinions only within their areas of expertise. Sometimes, lawyers hire an expert simply because the other side hired one first. But, usually, lawyers engage experts when the facts of a case remain unclear, when analytical procedures in some field might help clarify those facts, or when specialized training can help educate the jury in turn to help the jurors make better informed decisions. The goal remains to apply some reliable method to those facts to help the court render its decisions. For forensic scientists, it's all about reliable scientific methods.

14. . .

TEXT

(Title)_________________________________________________

1._________________________________________________________________________

2. ________________________________________________________________________

3._________________________________________________________________________

4._________________________________________________________________________

Attempting to characterize reliable scientific methods, as if describing some lifeless nonexistent abstraction, remains doomed to failure. There simply is no such generalized abstraction available to describe. At most, we can point toward a simple list detailing some of the many features reliable methods implement, enabling the productive scientific investigation of facts before the court. Reliable methods:

Help to distinguish evidence from coincidence without ambiguity.

Allow alternative results to be ranked by some principle basic to the sciences applied.

Allow for certainty considerations wherever appropriate through this ranking of relevant available alternatives.

Disallow hypotheses more extraordinary than the facts themselves.

Pursue general impressions to the level of specific details.

Pursue testing by breaking hypotheses (alternative explanations) into their smallest logical components, risking one part at a time.

294

Allow tests either to prove or to disprove alternative explanations (hypotheses).

In the forensic sciences, we reason from a set of given results (a crime scene, for example) to their probable explanations (hopefully, a link to the perpetrator). The aims of forensic science rest with developing justified explanations. But obviously not all forensic explanations are alike. Some involve entirely appropriate statistical assessments and degrees of error suitably dependent on accurate mathematical models and accurate population studies. However, not all forensic scientific explanations involve such statistical issues. Instead, individual, nonrepeatable events with no statistical characteristics may demand scientific explanation.

All reliably constructed scientific explanations are best viewed by their creators as works in progress. We could always learn additional facts that may alter our views. Sometimes, however, no additional information would be relevant. In either case, our opinions must be held with what American philosopher and scientist Charles Sanders Peirce called contrite fallibilism. By this is meant an awareness of how much we do not know, and the humility to acknowledge the possibility of making mistakes. He describes this intellectual stance to a friend in personal correspondence.

This basic intellectual stance remains necessary both for essential humility and for the very possibility of scientific advance. Forensic scientists must develop an intellect not too sure of what must remain uncertain, not too uncertain about what must remain sure. In the spirit of intellectual honesty and judicial prudence, the best advice for the forensic scientist to carry from the scene to the lab and into court throughout a long career comes from a 20th century Viennese philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein: "Whereof one can not speak," he said, "thereof one must remain silent."

Ethics relating to the scientific method:

A.The forensic scientist has a truly scientific spirit and should be inquiring, progressive, logical and unbiased.

B.The true scientist will make adequate examination of all materials, applying those tests essential to proof. They will not, merely for the sake of bolstering their conclusions, utilize unwarranted and superfluous tests in an attempt to give apparent greater weight to the results.

C.The modern scientific mind is an open one, incompatible with secrecy of method. Scientific analyses will not be conducted by “secret process”, nor will conclusions in case work be based upon such tests and experiments as will not be revealed to the profession.

D.A proper scientific method demands reliability of validity in the materials analyzed. Conclusions will not be drawn from materials which themselves appear unrepresentative, atypical or unreliable.

E.A truly scientific method requires that no generally discredited or unreliable procedure be utilized in the analysis.

F.The progressive worker will keep abreast of new developments in scientific methods and in all cases view them with an open mind. This is not to say that they need not be critical of untried or unproven methods, but they will recognize superior methods when they are introduced.

15..

1.What is the text about?

2.What reliable scientific methods are mentioned in the text?

3.Are they described in detail?

4.What have you learnt about forensic explanations?

5.How are the constructed scientific explanations viewed?

6.What does contrite fallibilism mean?

7.What advice for the forensic scientist is given by the author?

295

8.What ethical considerations should be taken to applying different scientific methods for forensic examination?

16.$# $ , '

. ? 1 ( & -$ , , ! !.

17. + $ . , & $# -

& .

*)$ –

, #- #' $ -

.

$" (& ) ,. . $ & " " .

%$ # :

6.+ $ $ & $ ) , ,.

$ :

296

d) to speak about his/her knowledge

4. The expert has a right to ….

a)state an opinion and give the supporting data and reasons for it

b)testify in narrative form, demand to see and examine any published texts being used to crossexamine you

c)refuse to state your opinion until you have been compensated

d)all listed above

5.A zealous forensic scientist may … a) misinterpret or falsify the results b) prove the truth

c) balance emotions with reason

6.The best advice for the forensic scientists is … a) to keep the mind open

b) to keep silence when can’t speak

c) “it takes two to speak the truth – one to speak and the other to hear”.

3. .

Like members of the legislative and executive branches, federal judges in the USA are expected to have high standards of ethics. All federal judges follow the principles outlined in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which has been adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal courts' national policy-making group. The Code of Conduct includes these guidelines:

•A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

•A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

•A judge should perform the duties of the office impartially and diligently.

•A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.

•A judge should regulate extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial duties.

•A judge should regularly file reports of compensation received for law-related and extrajudicial activities.

•A judge should refrain from political activity.

According to these ethical standards, judges should not hear cases in which they have a financial interest, a personal bias regarding a party to the case, or earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer. Further, judges are expected to participate in activities that contribute to the public good through improvement of the legal and judicial systems, and as a result, many judges are engaged in lawrelated education activities in schools.

4. .

1.According to the Code of Conduct for Judges a judge should do the job fairly and unbiasedly.

a)true

b)false

c)there is no information in the text.

2.According to the ethical standards, judges should refuse to hear cases in which they have a financial interest, a personal bias regarding a party to the case.

a)true

b)false

c)there is no information in the text.

299

5. , #' # # .

1.A judge should be an absolutely honest person.

2.According to the Code of Conduct a judge should satisfy certain ethical standards.

3.A judge should perform the duties of the office impartially.

GLOSSARY

1 ambiguity - ,

2.commitment to – ( ) , , !

~to principles – &$

~ideals - ~

ideological ~ - "$

3.ethics – ,

Code of ~ $ "

4.hypothesis –

~and verification –

~justification – &

hypotheses management – $

~test – "

~validity – $

rival hypotheses -

5. investigation – , , !, ,

Federal Bureau of ~ - $ / 2 " (/2) field ~ -

~ expert – %, " ~ files – "

judicial ~ -

6.moral – ,

morality – $ morals - , $

~certainty – &

7.reason – , , !, !

by ~ of - - good ~ -

important ~ - &$

reasons beyond control – $ rule of ~ - $ "

8.science -

~and technology –

forensic ~ -

legal ~ - ,

~of law –

9.temptation – !, &

to carry away by ~ - $ ) to fight against ~ - $ ) to repel ~ - $ )

to resist ~ - $ )

300