Novel Science Gets Extra Scrutiny at Trial

Novel Science Gets Extra Scrutiny at Trial

Law Times; March 14, 2005

By: Nora Bock

Information is tiring, over-abundant, and assails us from all directions. Good lawyers learn early that, as with any commodity, appropriate choices need to be made in consuming information. Not all of what is on offer is relevant, necessary, or even trustworthy. Some may even be dangerous.

While he won’t call it a trend toward the more rigorous exclusion of expert evidence in recent years, Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP’s William Horton says “while tactical considerations limit how often counsel will actually move to exclude this kind of evidence, admissibility is definitely being talked about.” (It’s also being written about: Horton and Michael Mercer produced a detailed analysis in a 2004 issue of The

Advocate’s Quarterly, “The Use of Expert Witness Evidence in Civil Cases”). In the Supreme Court of Canada’s seminal 1994 case R. v. Mohan, still the starting point for modern analysis of admissibility of expert evidence, the court warned of the power of such evidence when mishandled, to hijack the reasoned administration of justice.

“Dressed up in scientific language which the jury does not easily understand and submitted through a witness of impressive antecedents, this evidence is apt to be accepted by the jury as being virtually infallible and as having more weight than it deserves.”

And juries need not be singled out. In a 1998 article, Professor David Paciocco warned of the capacity of sophisticated expert evidence to overwhelm counsel by pulling them beyond their expertise.

Mohan laid down the basics, in the form of a four-part test that required evidence to be relevant; to be necessary to the jury’s understanding of the facts; to be incapable of being excluded under any other rule of evidence and to be tendered by a qualified expert.

Subsequent case law has elaborated on each part of this test. For example, the analysis of necessity of any particular piece of evidence requires a consideration of whether the evidence is reliable.

Evidence that can be characterized as “novel science” is subject to an enhanced level of scrutiny: a four-part analysis in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a U.S. case, has been incorporated into Canadian law as relevant to the assessment of reliability of novel science.

But these principles are merely the skeleton of a rich and developing body of law. Horton says besides necessity – the arm of the Mohan test that establishes, in effect, a cost-benefit approach to evidence – independence of experts is an area with considerable potential for judicial exploration.

Horton says the U.S. doctrine in the 1993 Ikarian Reefer case, discussed in his article, “has now been incorporated into Canadian jurisprudence,” and the strict view of an expert witness’ role as that of a neutral, and never an advocate, continues to be asserted and refined.

Horton notes tactical reasons often prevent counsel from challenging expert evidence: “You have to incur the expense of preparing responding evidence, regardless of your chances of success in excluding the other side’s expert.” In addition, if you’re a defendant moving to have a plaintiff’s evidence excluded, the judge gets to read the impugned plaintiff’s evidence for the purpose of the admissibility decision. “If you’re successful in excluding it, your own expert never gets read.”

For these reasons, says Horton, “you tend to see most of the motions to exclude being brought in the area of novel science.” Criminal defence counsel Edward Prutschi represented a defendant in a recent child-abuse case. He sought to rely on expert evidence relating to a novel diagnosis and argues that courts should be careful when performing a cost-benefit analysis not to overlook the potential of “novel science” evidence to put other, more traditional evidence, in proper perspective.

Prutschi believes that judges underestimate jurors’ ability to synthesize new information.

“Our judiciary gives juries a tremendous amount of credit when it comes to understanding limiting instructions on very complicated legal issues – for example, when we ask a jury to use a criminal record only for the purposes of credibility, and not purposes of disposition. Yet, when it comes to the introduction of novel science, the judiciary often seems to take the position that this evidence is so distracting that the jury cannot be trusted with it.”

He questions why the courts can’t simply allow the jury members to make their own determination as to weight. However, Cara Sweeney, the Crown in the same case, says there’s a difference between a doubt and a reasonable doubt. “It was just bad science,” said Sweeney, of the bone-defect theory at issue in the child-abuse case.

But Prutschi argues that conflicting evidence has value as a stimulus for independent reasoning. “Doctors aren’t always right. That’s why we have second opinions. It’s my responsibility, as counsel, — and theirs, as jury members – not to substitute one doctor’s opinion for our own reasoned decision on guilt or innocence.”

Discharging that responsibility, in Prutschi’s opinion, requires exposure to alternate opinions. Sweeney counters that the Mohan criteria represent a more responsible approach to evidence, and are designed to avoid a miscarriage of justice. “In a case like this,” said Sweeney, “[an acquittal on inappropriate evidence] exposes an abused child to potentially being returned to the parent.” Clearly, courts are not willing to leave the task of weighing evidence entirely up to the jury. Especially where novel science evidence relates to a central issue in the case – a situation characterized in the 2000 Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. J.-L.J. as “a short step to the conclusion on the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence” – it will be handles restrictively.

If you need representation after being charged with a criminal offence, call a Toronto Criminal Lawyer from Bytensky Prutschi Shikhman located in Toronto, Ontario. Our criminal lawyers are available 24/7 to talk to you.

 

Our Testimonials

Dod Ndreu
Dod Ndreu
23:22 02 May 20
Edward is an excellent lawyer. He is very professional and hard working criminal lawyer. I hired him for my sons criminal matter as he was looking at numerous charges and some serious jail time. He worked very hard on my sons case and dropped all charges. My son was able to get away with no jail time, thanks to Edwards hard work.. Edward was a godsend to me and my family in the hardest time of my life, and I will never forget. Every thing he told me during the court sessions happened exactly as he had planned them. I would very highly recommend Edward, his work speaks for itself. If you want positive results this is the guy to hire.Thank you Edward for what you have done for me and my family.All the best,Dod
Christopher Seiler
Christopher Seiler
17:20 04 Apr 20
Sonya Shikhman was a total life saver. She took my case in her hands and never left me doubting that I had the best representation I ever could. Thank you for your professionalism, your commitment and accuracy.
Adriano Carpenter
Adriano Carpenter
02:05 04 Apr 20
Sonya is very professional, knowledgable and pleasant lawyer. She was always there when we needed her. She was patient, explained every step of the very unpleasant process and prepared us for every day of the trial. I have been recommending Sonya and her law firm ever since. Thank you, Sonya! Keep up Great Work!
Alex Chalmiev
Alex Chalmiev
11:28 12 Sep 19
The service that their law firm provides is top notch. I had the pleasure to work with Sonya Shikhman she is an incredible lawyer. Very sharp, straight to the point, and gets the job done. It’s very rear that you see the professionalism on that level.
Omar Kalair
Omar Kalair
00:01 15 Jul 19
Edward Prutschi is an excellent criminal lawyer. He took a complex financial crime case where I was facing a long term jail sentence and was able to present a case where the judge acquitted me on all charges. I dealt with two other lawyers who were on record for my file before Edward came on board. With Edward, I found he was always responsive and always willing to listen. He presented a complex case over 5 weeks and was quick on his feet for every twist and turn during the trial. He would be up late the night before witness examination exchanging emails due to new email evidence I was sending him. He would go out of his way to visit potential expert witnesses. He presented a united and coherent defense to the Judge which in the end resulted in my acquittal and the co-accused. With his leading media expertise and being a guest columnist in the Toronto Sun, he wrote an article in defense of my acquittal for those who were questioning the Judge’s decision.
taravid7
taravid7
06:41 07 Feb 19
This is by far the best legal representation in Toronto. Sonya Shikhman is tough and brilliant. I highly recommend this firm.
Richard D
Richard D
00:17 24 Apr 18
An excellent lawyer. Edward Prutschi is thorough, non-judgmental and effective. He returns calls quickly and handles everything with a personal touch that puts you immediately at ease. I would highly recommend him
Andreea Felinar
Andreea Felinar
17:01 20 Aug 15
Edward Prutschi is very professional and very helpful. Very patiently, Mr. Prutschi offered me so many detailed responses to my questions. If you need the best criminal lawyer, Mr. Prutschi is the best of the best! Thank you for your efforts, Mr. Prutschi!Cristina F.
Maria konyukhova
Maria konyukhova
15:03 07 Mar 14
Sonya Shikhman is my go-to resource for criminal referrals. She is brilliant in her knowledge and application of criminal legal principles and has a superior understanding of client needs and the most practical avenues to meeting them.
Steven Klein
Steven Klein
15:51 03 Sep 13
I recently referred a client to Ed for assistance. The feedback from the client was excellent. Thanks Ed!
Shannon Stein
Shannon Stein
14:16 11 Jun 13
Ed Prutschi has always been a highly ethical, hard working professional criminal lawyer who gets results for his clients at all times. Our agency, Just For Today Harm Reduction Services, has worked with Ed for nearly ten years and all of our clients feel, as we do, that they have been well served by an empathetic lawyer who places his clients first and foremost.
David Levy
David Levy
21:20 23 May 13
Ed Prutschi is an excellent criminal lawyer. His command of the law and his experience in the Courtroom make him a stellar advocate in any criminal matter. I refer clients to Ed without hesitation because I know they will receive the zealous advocacy they want.
Sharon Shore
Sharon Shore
18:16 15 Mar 13
Ed is an excellent criminal lawyer. He is very professional, extremely responsive and gets good results for my clients. I never hesitate in referring clients to him. Ed has an intimate understanding of how different areas of law intersect with and affect the criminal proceedings. Ed is also a great resource for other lawyers. He is constantly reporting on new case law, and is very knowledgable about cutting edge areas of law.
Lance Lehman
Lance Lehman
18:03 12 Feb 13
Ed’s knowledge of criminal law is first-rate. His analysis is quick and thorough. His integrity is second to none. I never think twice about whom to call when one of my clients has a criminal law issue and I have never been disappointed with the results.
Stuart Rudner
Stuart Rudner
00:03 12 Feb 13
I have known Ed Prutschi since we were in law school together. When I am asked for a great criminal lawyer, I think of Ed because he is well-known for his advocacy and effectiveness in representing his clients’ interests. Ed demonstrates his vast knowledge through his writing and social media efforts, and his record of success demonstrates that he understands what his clients need and the strategies necessary to achieve it. In addition to knowledge and strategy, Ed brings with him a personality that makes people comfortable at very difficult times in their lives. I have referred people to Ed in the past and have never had any complaints, which is important to me. When I refer someone to another lawyer, I never want to hear that the lawyer was unresponsive or did a poor job. Ed always makes me look good.
Next Reviews

Call Now ButtonCall Now to Discuss Your Case.