Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
T H E S TAT E
R U L E S O F
A D M I S S I B I L I T Y
A Survey of How Expert Testimony Is Admitted In All 50 States
With E...
ExactSource, an industry leader in forensic engineering talent
acquisition, is often tasked with the difficult job of find...
TA B L E
O F C O N T E N T S
4 Alabama
5 Alaska
6 Arkansas
7 Arizona
8 California
9 Colorado
10 Connecticut
11 Delaware
12...
A L A B A M A
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye/Rules of Evidence*1
License Required Yes**2
Accident Reconstruction Yes**3
Biom...
A L A S K A
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert5
License Required No6
Accident Reconstruction Yes7
Biomechanics Yes8
Tests con...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
A R I Z O N A
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye*9
License Required No10
Accide...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
A R K A N S A S
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert13
License Required No14
A...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
C A L I F O R N I A
Daubert, Frye or other. Other: Kelly-Frye*17
License ...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
C O L O R A D O
Daubert, Frye or other. Other: Rules of Evidence*21
Licen...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
C O N N E C T I C U T
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert*25
License Required...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
D E L A W A R E
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert29
License Required Yes*30...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
F L O R I D A
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye33
License Required No*34
Accid...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
G E O R G I A
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert38
License Required No39
Acc...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
H A W A I I
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*42
License Required...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
I D A H O
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*46
License Required N...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
I L L I N O I S
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye*50
License Required No51
Acc...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
I N D I A N A
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*54
License Requir...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
I O W A
Daubert, Frye or other. Other*58
License Required No59
Accident R...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
K A N S A S
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye63
License Required No64
Accident...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
K E N T U C K Y
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert66
License Required No67
A...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
L O U I S I A N A
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert70
License Required No71...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
M A I N E
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*74
License Required N...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
M A R Y L A N D
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye*78
License Required No79
Acc...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
M A S S A C H U S E T T S
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert*82
License Requ...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
M I C H I G A N
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert/Frye*86
License Required ...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
M I N N E S O TA
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye+*90
License Required No**
A...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
M I S S I S S I P P I
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert94
License Required ...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
M I S S O U R I
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*98
License Requ...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
M O N TA N A
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert*102
License Required No103
A...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
N E B R A S K A
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert106
License Required No107...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
N E V A D A
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*110
License Require...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
N E W H A M P S H I R E
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert*114
License Requi...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
N E W J E R S E Y
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*118
License R...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
N E W M E X I C O
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert122
License Required No1...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
N E W Y O R K
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye126
License Required No127
Acci...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
N O R T H C A R O L I N A
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*130
L...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
N O R T H D A K O TA
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*134
Licens...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
O H I O
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert138
License Required No139
Acciden...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
O K L A H O M A
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert142
License Required No143...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
O R E G O N
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of evidence+Daubert+*146
Licens...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
P E N N S Y LV A N I A
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye150
License Required N...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
R H O D E I S L A N D
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert154
License Required...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
S O U T H C A R O L I N A
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*157
L...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
S O U T H D A K O TA
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert161
License Required ...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
T E N N E S S E E
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence/Daubert*165
L...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
T E X A S
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert169
License Required Yes170
Acci...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
U TA H
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*173
License Required No1...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
V E R M O N T
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert177
License Required No178
A...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
V I R G I N I A
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*180
License Req...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
W A S H I N G T O N
Daubert, Frye or other. Frye184
License Required No18...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
W E S T V I R G I N I A
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert188
License Requir...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
W I S C O N S I N
Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*192
License R...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
W Y O M I N G
Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert196
License Required No*197
...
A P U B L I C AT I O N
O F E X A C T S O U R C E
I N T E R E S T E D I N
F O R E N S I C E N G I N E E R I N G
R E C R U I...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

From ExactSource- Rules Regatding Admission of Expert Witness Testimony

381 views

Published on

Produced by ExactSource this is an updated analysis of the admissibility of biomechanic and accident reconstruction expert witness testimony in all 50 states.

Published in: Engineering
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

From ExactSource- Rules Regatding Admission of Expert Witness Testimony

  1. 1. T H E S TAT E R U L E S O F A D M I S S I B I L I T Y A Survey of How Expert Testimony Is Admitted In All 50 States With Emphasis on Accident Reconstruction and Biomechanics
  2. 2. ExactSource, an industry leader in forensic engineering talent acquisition, is often tasked with the difficult job of finding candidates from all disciplines who possess a unique blend of skills and expertise. When searching for forensic engineers our clients often request candidates whose background allows them to qualify to testify as an expert witness. Unfortunately, there is no standard formula to determine whether or not a forensic engineer can qualify on a particular topic in a particular court. This e-book is intended to function as a tool to assist both forensic engineering firms and potential candidates. You’ll find this 50-State Guide to Expert Admissibility as a useful reference tool when making an initial decision about whether to take a project or how to staff a particular job. This is not meant to be a definitive guide to expert admissibility in every situation and certainly should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from an attorney in your jurisdiction.
  3. 3. TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S 4 Alabama 5 Alaska 6 Arkansas 7 Arizona 8 California 9 Colorado 10 Connecticut 11 Delaware 12 Florida 13 Georgia 14 Alabama 15 Alaska 16 Arkansas 17 Arizona 18 California 19 Colorado 20 Connecticut 21 Delaware 22 Florida 23 Georgia 24 Connecticut 25 Delaware 26 Florida 27 Georgia 28 Alabama 29 Alaska 30 Arkansas 31 Arizona 32 California 33 Colorado 34 Connecticut 35 Delaware 36 Florida 37 Georgia 38 Alabama 39 Alaska 40 Arkansas 41 Arizona 42 California 43 Colorado 44 Connecticut 45 Delaware 46 Florida 47 Georgia 48 Connecticut 49 Delaware 50 Florida 51 Georgia 52 Connecticut 53 Delaware 54 Florida 51 Georgia
  4. 4. A L A B A M A Daubert, Frye or other. Frye/Rules of Evidence*1 License Required Yes**2 Accident Reconstruction Yes**3 Biomechanics Yes**4 *The Alabama courts have not abandoned the Frye test of admissibility; however, they also consider the Rules of Evidence which requires the witnesses to be qualified and helpful to the trier of fact. **An engineering expert witness only needs a license when testifying about work that can only be legally done by a professional engineer. The witness does not have to be licensed in Alabama, but in some jurisdiction of the U.S. 1 Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So. 2d 198 (2000) 2 Arthur v. Bolen, 41 So. 3d 745, (2010) 3 Gooden v. City of Talladega, 966 So. 2d 232, (2007) 4 CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller, 46 So. 3d 434 (2010)A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E
  5. 5. A L A S K A Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert5 License Required No6 Accident Reconstruction Yes7 Biomechanics Yes8 Tests conducted in preparation for a trial should be peer-reviewed to ensure they pass a Daubert challenge. No side in a trial may have more than three expert witnesses unless given special permission by the court. An expert witness retained or employed to give testimony in a case must file a pre-trial report at the direction of the court with a complete statement of all opinions to be given, information or data used to form the opinions, any exhibits to be offered in support of their opinions, the witness’s qualifications, a list of all publications by the witness in the previous ten years, the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony, and a list of other trials and depositions given in the previous four years. 5 State v. Coon, 974 P. 2d 386 (1999) 6 Little Susitna Construction Co. v. Soil Processing, 944 P. 2d 20 7 Marron v. Stromstad, 123 P.3d 992 (2005) 8 Cable v. Shefchik, 985 P. 2d 474 (1999) A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E
  6. 6. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E A R I Z O N A Daubert, Frye or other. Frye*9 License Required No10 Accident Reconstruction Yes11 Biomechanics Yes12 *The Frye test does not apply to experts who reach their conclusions through “inductive reasoning based on his or her own experience, observation, or research.” Only when using novel scientific principles or procedures developed by others is it necessary for an expert to pass a Frye hearing. 9 Logerquist v. Mcvey, 196 Ariz. 470 (2000) 10 Bliss v. Treece, 134 Ariz. 516 (1983) 11 Lohmeier v. Hammer, 148 P.3d 101 (2006 12 Lohmeier v. Hammer, 148 P.3d 101 (2006
  7. 7. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E A R K A N S A S Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert13 License Required No14 Accident Reconstruction Yes*15 Biomechanics ** *Expert accident reconstruction testimony is only allowed in situations where there are no eye witnesses, the eye witness testimony is contradictory, the eye witness would not be able to understand what caused the accident, or the jury would not be able to draw their own conclusions. **There is no case law on biomechanics testimony to date, but occupant kinematics evidence has been allowed.16 13 Green v. Alpharma, Inc., 373 Ark. 378 (2008) 14 Parker Construction Co. v. Aldridge, 312 Ark. 69 (1993) 15 Drope v. Owens, 298 Ark. 69 (1989) and Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Daggett, 354 Ark. 112 (2003) 16 Carr v. GMC, 322 Ark. 664 (1995)
  8. 8. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E C A L I F O R N I A Daubert, Frye or other. Other: Kelly-Frye*17 License Required No**18 Accident Reconstruction Yes19 Biomechanics Yes20 *The Kelly-Frye test is basically the Frye test with two additional requirements: (1) the witness must be qualified in the field they offer testimony in, and (2) the methods used to gather data must also meet the general acceptance rule. The Kelly-Frye test only applies to new science. **To be declared an expert, a witness does not need any particular license, but must demonstrate specialized knowledge in their field. 17 People v. Kelly, 17 Cal. 3d 24 (1976) 18 People v. King, 266 Cal. App. 2d 437 (1968) 19 Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1298 (2011) 20 Soule v. GMC, 8 Cal. 4th 548 (1994)
  9. 9. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E C O L O R A D O Daubert, Frye or other. Other: Rules of Evidence*21 License Required No22 Accident Reconstruction Yes23 Biomechanics Yes24 *Colorado Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony in Colorado. It requires the testimony to be based on reliable scientific principles, the witness to be qualified in their field, and that the testimony will be helpful to the jury in understanding the facts. Reliability is judged by a flexible list of factors: (1) if the techniques used to gather data can be tested, (2) if the techniques have been subjected to peer review, (3) the rate of error, (4) if the technique has been generally accepted, (5) the relationship between the expert’s technique and other more established methods, (6) the existence of supporting literature, (7) uses for the technique outside of litigation, (8) types of error generated by the technique, and (9) if the techniques have been accepted in other similar cases. The expert’s qualifications and helpfulness are more straightforward criteria and will be judged by the court. Colorado also requires experts that have been retained to offer testimony to submit pretrial summaries of their opinions, methods, exhibits, qualifications, and all previous trials they’ve offered testimony for in the previous four years. 21 People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (2001) 22 Huntoon v. TCI Cablevision, Inc., 969 P.2d 681 (1998) 23 Wark v. McClellan, 68 P.3d 574 (2003) 24 Schultz v. Wells, 13 P.3d 846 (2000)
  10. 10. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E C O N N E C T I C U T Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert*25 License Required No26 Accident Reconstruction Yes27 Biomechanics Yes28 *Connecticut added three requirements to the original Daubert four: (1) if the testimony is objective, (2) if the witness can explain their testimony in a way that helps the jury, and (3) if the expert’s methodology was developed solely for litigation or has other uses. These additional factors are awarded less weight than the Daubert factors but can be important when the reliability of the evidence is otherwise difficult to determine. The validity of the methodology is more important than an expert’s qualifications. 25 Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, 299 Conn. 241 (2010) 26 Sovereign Bank v. Licata, 116 Conn. App. 483 (2009) 27 Hicks v. State, 287 Conn. 421 (2008) 28 DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 123 Conn. App. 583 (2010)
  11. 11. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E D E L A W A R E Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert29 License Required Yes*30 Accident Reconstruction Yes31 Biomechanics Yes**32 *Delaware requires that engineers be licensed in a state, not necessarily Delaware, to offer expert testimony. **Delaware has very strict guidelines on how they judge biomechanics testimony. The courts recognize biomechanical testimony that demonstrates what forces may have acted on a body and what effects those forces may have had. If attempting to prove injury causation, the testimony must provide definitive evidence that specific physical forces caused the precise injury to the particular person. This testimony can contradict medical testimony when the physics of the event clearly differ from what the medical testimony claims happened. One example of these strict guidelines was a car accident case where the Delaware Supreme Court threw out biomechanical testimony despite the unquestioned qualification of the expert and his methods, because the victim of the accident had undergone back surgery for pain prior to the crash. The courts decided that because the biomechanics expert had not reviewed the victim’s prior medical history and did not take this “abnormal” body condition into account, his testimony was invalid. 29 M.G. Bancorporation v. LeBeau, 737 A.2d 513 (1999) 30 24 Del. C. §2802A 31 Bell Sports, Inc. v. Yarusso, 759 A.2d 582 (2000) 32 Eskin v. Carden, 842 A.2d 1222 (2004)
  12. 12. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E F L O R I D A Daubert, Frye or other. Frye33 License Required No*34 Accident Reconstruction Yes35 Biomechanics Yes**36 *The Florida law says that a witness may be qualified as an expert if they have a professional degree from a college or university and has had special professional training and experience, or if the individual is possessed of special knowledge or skill about a subject. For engineering testimony, the witness is expected to be licensed unless extremely qualified. **Biomechanics experts are allowed to testify about the forces in an accident and how a body may react, but they are strictly prohibited from testifying about the extent of an injury that an individual may have suffered in an accident. A witness must have a medical degree to testify to specific injury causation.37 33 Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So. 2d 543 (2007) 34 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.390 35 Goldberg v. Florida Power and Light Co., 899 So. 2d 1105 (2005) 36 Griffen v. Kia Motors Corp., 843 So. 2d 336 (2003) 37 Mattek v. White, 695 So. 2d 942 (1997)
  13. 13. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E G E O R G I A Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert38 License Required No39 Accident Reconstruction Yes40 Biomechanics Yes*41 *Biomechanics expert prevented from testifying because he had not investigated either the vehicle or the victim. Go Dawgs! 38 Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 283 Ga. 271 (2008) 39 Agri-Cycle LLC v. Couch, 284 Ga. 90 (2008) 40 State Auto Property & Casualty Co. v. Matty, 286 Ga. 611 (2010) 41 Brown v. Hove, 268 Ga. App. 732 (2004)
  14. 14. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E H A W A I I Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*42 License Required No43 Accident Reconstruction Yes44 Biomechanics Yes45 *Hawaii’s rules of evidence dictate that an expert witness’s testimony must meet five criteria to be permissible in court: (1) the testimony must be helpful to the jury, (2) it must aid the jury’s understanding of the facts, (3) the underlying theory must be valid, (4) the correct procedures must be used to gather the data, and (5) any procedures used to gather data must be performed properly. 42 State v. Samonte, 83 Haw. 507 (1996) 43 Tabieros v. Clark Equipment Co., 85 Haw. 336 (1997) 44 Wemple v. Dahman, 103 Haw. 385 (2004) 45 Udac v. Takata Corp., 121 Haw. 143 (2009)
  15. 15. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E I D A H O Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*46 License Required No47 Accident Reconstruction Yes48 Biomechanics Yes49 *Idaho uses their Rules of Evidence as the test of admissibility. The main requirement is that the evidence be helpful to the jury. The courts will also inquire about the principles and methodology behind the expert’s opinion and whether they are testable and peer reviewed. 46 Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Services, 143 Idaho 834 (2007) 47 Jones v. Jones, 117 Idaho 621 (1990) 48 Chapman v. Chapman, 147 Idaho 756 (2009) 49 Chapman v. Chapman, 147 Idaho 756 (2009)
  16. 16. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E I L L I N O I S Daubert, Frye or other. Frye*50 License Required No51 Accident Reconstruction Yes52 Biomechanics Yes53 *In Illinois, the Frye standard is mainly applied to the methodology and principles behind the testimony, instead of the expert’s conclusions. 50 People v. Mckown, 236 Ill. 2d 278 (2010) 51 Somers v. Quinn, 373 Ill. App. 3d 87 52 Zavala v. Powermatic, Inc., 167 Ill. 2d 542 (1995) 53 Fronabarger v. Burns, 385 Ill. App. 3d 560 (2008)
  17. 17. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E I N D I A N A Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*54 License Required No55 Accident Reconstruction Yes56 Biomechanics Yes**57 *Part (b) of Indiana’s Rule 702 states that “Expert scientific testimony is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rests are reliable.” The Indiana courts regard the Daubert factors as “helpful, but not controlling,” on judging the reliability of expert witness testimony. **Biomechanics testimony is not allowed to testify about causation, only the physical forces involved and reaction of a body. 54 Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d 490 (1995) 55 Hammond v. Indiana H. B. R. Co., 175 Ind. App. 644 (1978) 56 Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128 (2005) 57 Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128 (2005)
  18. 18. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E I O W A Daubert, Frye or other. Other*58 License Required No59 Accident Reconstruction Yes60 Biomechanics Yes61 *Iowa has an ad hoc approach to admitting expert testimony.62 They usually look for testimony to be reliable and understandable. For especially novel or complex science, they do identify the Daubert factors as general guidelines. Typically, a Daubert challenge is only proper for expert scientific testimony. Technical and other non-scientific evidence does not have to pass the Daubert criteria. 58 Ranes v. Adams Labs., Inc., 778 N.W.2d 677 (2010) 59 Ranes v. Adams Labs., Inc., 778 N.W.2d 677 (2010) 60 Nichols v. Schweitzer, 472 N.W.2d 266 (1991) 61 Oelwein Community School District v. Williams, 2003 Iowa App. Lexis 531 (2003) 62 State v. Hall, 297 N.W.2d 80 (1980)
  19. 19. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E K A N S A S Daubert, Frye or other. Frye63 License Required No64 Accident Reconstruction Yes65 Biomechanics * *There is no case law on the admissibility of biomechanics evidence in Kansas. 63 Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 270 Kan. 443 (2000) 64 Cline v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 182 Kan. 155 (1957) 65 McElhaney v. Rouse, 197 Kan. 136 (1966)
  20. 20. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E K E N T U C K Y Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert66 License Required No67 Accident Reconstruction Yes68 Biomechanics Yes69 Experts must disclose how much they are being compensated for their testimony. 66 Toyota Motor Corp. v. Gregory, 136 S.W.3d 35 (2004) 67 Kentucky Revised Statutes § 322.010 68 Gorman v. Hunt, 19 S.W.3d 662 (2000) 69 CSX Transportation, Inc., v. Begley, 313 S.W.3d 52 (2010)
  21. 21. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E L O U I S I A N A Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert70 License Required No71 Accident Reconstruction Yes72 Biomechanics Yes73 70 State v. Foret, 628 So. 2d 1116 (1993) 71 State v. Pelt, 448 So. 2d 1294 (1984) 72 State v. Pelt, 448 So. 2d 1294 (1984) 73 Taylor v. Progressive Security Insurance Co., 33 So. 3d 1081 (2010)
  22. 22. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E M A I N E Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*74 License Required No75 Accident Reconstruction Yes76 Biomechanics Yes**77 *The rules of evidence require judges to consider if (1) the expert is qualified, (2) the testimony is relevant, and (3) the testimony will assist the trier of fact. Indicators of reliability include whether the testimony (1) has been peer-reviewed, (2) if other similar studies have been done, (3) if other experts support the methods used in the testimony, (4) the expert’s qualifications, and (5) if there is a scientific basis for causation. **There is no specific case law about biomechanics, but occupant kinematics has been approved by the Maine courts. 74 Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Pa., Inc., 2005 ME 94 (2005) 75 State v. Caron, 2011 ME 9 (2011) 76 State v. Irving, 2003 ME 31 (2003) 77 State v. Caron, 2011 ME 9 (2011)
  23. 23. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E M A R Y L A N D Daubert, Frye or other. Frye*78 License Required No79 Accident Reconstruction Yes80 Biomechanics Yes81 *The Frye examination in Maryland also covers the methods and theories behind the expert’s testimony. Testimony can also be excluded on lack of relevancy or qualification. 78 Blackwell v. Wyeth, 408 Md, 575 (2009) 79 Vroom v. Arundel Gas Co., 262 Md. 657 (1971) 80 Charles County Commissioners v. Johnson, 393 Md. 248 (2006) 81 Nissan Motor Co. v. Nave, 129 Md. App. 90 (1999)
  24. 24. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E M A S S A C H U S E T T S Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert*82 License Required No**83 Accident Reconstruction Yes84 Biomechanics Yes85 *Massachusetts still acknowledges general acceptance as the most critical factor for judging expert testimony. Only when an expert’s testimony involves science that lacks general acceptance is a Daubert hearing necessary. There are five foundational requirements for expert testimony: helpfulness, qualifications, reliability of facts and data, reliability of process and theory, and that the process/theory is applied to the facts/data reliably. **The law does not include testimony as part of the practice of engineering that requires a license, but there are no cases where an unlicensed engineer was allowed to give testimony. 82 Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994) 83 Leibovich v. Antonellis, 410 Mass. 568 (1991) 84 Commonwealth v. Merry, 453 Mass. 653 (2009) 85 Commonwealth v. Power, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 398 (2010)
  25. 25. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E M I C H I G A N Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert/Frye*86 License Required No87 Accident Reconstruction Yes88 Biomechanics Yes**89 *Michigan incorporates both the Frye and Daubert admissibility standards into their rule of evidence. Testimony must pass a Daubert challenge, and if it is novel evidence, the testimony must be proven to be based on science that has achieved general acceptance in its field. **Biomechanics experts are not allowed to testify about the precise cause of a specific injury, or, in the case of product liability, the safety of a proposed improvement of a product. 86 Clerc v. Chippewa County War Memorial Hospital, 477 Mich. 1067 (2007) 87 People v. Hawthorne, 293 Mich. 15 (1940) 88 People v. Feezel, 486 Mich. 184 (2010) 89 Hershey v. Black and Decker, 2008 Mich. App. Lexis 1919
  26. 26. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E M I N N E S O TA Daubert, Frye or other. Frye+*90 License Required No** Accident Reconstruction Yes91 Biomechanics Yes92 *Along with general acceptance, Minnesota requires that evidence found through the expert’s use of scientific technique must be grounded in reliable science. Essentially, the techniques that experts use to investigate an issue at trial must be scientifically valid. **Minnesota law does not include expert testimony as part of the practice of engineering requiring a license, but the case law seems to indicate almost all expert engineering testimony was given by registered engineers.93 90 State v. Traylor, 656 N.W.2d 885 (2003) 91 W.G.O. ex rel A.W.O. v. Crandall, 640 N.W.2d 344 (2002) 92 Malith v. Soller, 2010 Minn. App. Unpub. Lexis 552 (2010) 93 Minn. Statute § 326.02
  27. 27. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E M I S S I S S I P P I Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert94 License Required Yes*95 Accident Reconstruction Yes96 Biomechanics Yes97 *Experts wishing to provide engineering testimony in Mississippi must obtain a limited license in Mississippi. To qualify for a limited license, the expert needs to be licensed as an engineer in another jurisdiction. 94 Miss. Transportation Commission v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (2003) 95 Miss. Code Annotated § 73-13-3 96 Denham v. Holmes, 60 So. 3d 773 (2011) 97 Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhite, 53 So. 3d 749 (2011)
  28. 28. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E M I S S O U R I Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*98 License Required No99 Accident Reconstruction Yes100 Biomechanics Yes101 *The Missouri statutes require that the court determine (1) if an expert is qualified, (2) if the testimony will help the trier of fact, (3) if the testimony is based on data and methods found reliable by other experts in the field, and (4) if the court finds the testimony otherwise reliable. 98 State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (2003) 99 Yantzi v. Norton, 927 S.W.2d 427 (1996) 100 Hayes v. Price, 313 S.W.3d 645 (2010) 101 Eltiste v. Ford Motor Co., 167 S.W.3d 742 (2005)
  29. 29. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E M O N TA N A Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert*102 License Required No103 Accident Reconstruction Yes104 Biomechanics Yes105 *Only novel scientific evidence is subject to a Daubert challenge, but all scientific evidence must be deemed admissible as stated in Montana Rules of Evidence, Rule 702. Montana’s Rule 702 is equivalent to the Federal Rule 702 which requires that the witness be qualified, the evidence be reliable, and the testimony be relevant to the case. 102 Hulse v. DOJ, Motor Vehicle Division, 1998 MT 108 (1998) 103 Hammer v. State, 2007 Mont. Dist. Lexis 131 (2007) affirmed by Montana Supreme Court 104 Perdue v. Gagnon Farms, Inc., 2003 MT 47 (2003) 105 Davis v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 244 Mont. 61 (1990) Overruled on other grounds
  30. 30. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E N E B R A S K A Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert106 License Required No107 Accident Reconstruction Yes108 Biomechanics Yes109 106 Schafersman v. Agland Coop., 262 Neb. 215 (2001) 107 Northern Natural Gas Company v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 202 Neb. 300 (1979) 108 Ford v. Estate of Clinton, 265 Neb. 285 (2003) 109 Shipler v. GMC, 271 Neb. 194 (2006)
  31. 31. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E N E V A D A Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*110 License Required No111 Accident Reconstruction Yes112 Biomechanics No**113 *The Nevada Rule 702 has three prongs to test admissibility: (1) that the witness is qualified, (2) that their knowledge will assist the trier of fact, and (3) that they only testify to matters within their field of expertise. The most important factor is whether or not their testimony will assist the jury. To be helpful, expert testimony must be based on reliable methodology. Courts determine reliability by examining if the testimony is (1) within a recognized field of expertise, (2) testable and has been tested, (3) published and subject to peer review, (4) generally accepted within the scientific community, and (5) based on “particularized facts rather than assumption, conjecture, orgeneralization…” If the testimony is based on an experiment the court is also required to consider (1) if the experiment was controlled by known standards, (2) if the testing conditions were similar to the conditions of the original incident, (3) if there was a known error rate, and (4) if it was developed just for the litigation the expert was involved in. **Biomechanics testimony was thrown out in a case as unreliable because the party producing the witness failed to provide any evidence that biomechanics was within a recognized field of expertise. Also, the witness failed to offer any scientific basis for his opinion as he did not investigate the events of the accident or attempt to reconstruct them. 110 Higgs v. State, 222 P.3d 648 (2010) 111 Hallmark v. Eldridge, 189 P.3d 646 (2008) 112 Sheriff, Clark County v. Burcham, 198 P.3d 326 (2008) 113 Hallmark v. Eldridge, 189 P.3d 646 (2008)
  32. 32. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E N E W H A M P S H I R E Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert*114 License Required No115 Accident Reconstruction Yes116 Biomechanics Yes117 *A Daubert hearing is only necessary in cases where the evidence is based on science that is not “taken for granted”. 114 Baker Valley Lumber v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 148 N.H. 609 (2002) 115 Marcotte v. Peirce Construction Co., 111 N.H. 226 (1971) 116 Mclaughlin v. Fisher Engineering, 150 N.H. 195 (2003) 117 Vautour v. Body Masters Sports Industries, 147 N.H. 150 (2001)
  33. 33. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E N E W J E R S E Y Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*118 License Required No119 Accident Reconstruction Yes120 Biomechanics Yes121 *New Jersey Rule 702 has three requirements: that the testimony is reliable, helpful to the trier of fact, and that the witness is qualified. Reliability can be established through general acceptance or use of the testimony in other judicial decisions. 118 Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 NJ 6 (2008) 119 Alliance for Disabled in Action, Inc., v. Continental, 371 NJ Super. 398 (2004) 120 Campione v. Soden, 150 NJ 163 (1997) 121 Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 NJ 6 (2008)
  34. 34. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E N E W M E X I C O Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert122 License Required No123 Accident Reconstruction Yes124 Biomechanics Yes125 122 Lee v. Martinez, 96 P.3d 291 (2004) 123 Baerwald v. Flores, 122 NM 679 (1996) 124 Harrison v. ICX, 98 NM 247 (1982) 125 Baerwald v. Flores, 122 NM 679 (1996)
  35. 35. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E N E W Y O R K Daubert, Frye or other. Frye126 License Required No127 Accident Reconstruction Yes128 Biomechanics Yes129 126 Parker v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 2006 Slip Op 7391 (2006) 127 Caprara v. Chrysler Corporation, 52 NY 2d 114 (1981) 128 Soto v. NY City Transit Authority, 6 NY3d 487 (2006) 129 Mathis v. NY Health Club, Inc., 288 AD2d 56 (2001)
  36. 36. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E N O R T H C A R O L I N A Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*130 License Required No131 Accident Reconstruction Yes132 Biomechanics Yes133 *The North Carolina Rule 702 requires expert testimony to be (1) reliable, (2) given by a qualified witness, and (3) relevant to the issue at trial. 130 Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 NC 440 (2004) 131 Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 NC 440 (2004) 132 NC Gen Stat. 8C-1, Rule 702 133 Floyd v. McGill, 156 NC App. 29 (2003)
  37. 37. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E N O R T H D A K O TA Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*134 License Required No135 Accident Reconstruction Yes136 Biomechanics ** *North Dakota only requires that expert testimony be helpful to the trier of fact and presented by a qualified witness. There are no specific requirements for qualification, and North Dakota encourages a very liberal admissibility policy. **There is no case law on the admissibility of biomechanics, but kinematics evidence has been allowed by North Dakota courts.137 134 State v. Hernandez, 2005 ND 214 (2005) 135 Endresen v. Scheels Hardware and Sports Shop, 1997 ND 38 (1997) 136 Wolf v. Estate of Seright, 1997 ND 240 (1997) 137 Usry v. Theusch, 521 NW 2d 918 (1994)
  38. 38. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E O H I O Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert138 License Required No139 Accident Reconstruction Yes140 Biomechanics Yes141 138 Terry v. Caputo, 115 Ohio St. 3d 351 (2007) 139 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Tomchik, 134 Ohio App. 3d 765 (1999) 140 Lanham v. Wilson, 1991 Ohio App. Lexis 3820 (1991) 141 Lee v. Mendel, 1999 Ohio App. Lexis 3892 (1999)
  39. 39. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E O K L A H O M A Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert142 License Required No143 Accident Reconstruction Yes144 Biomechanics Yes145 142 Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10 (2003) 143 Howlett v. Mayo’s Inc., 186 Okla. 651 (1940) 144 Snyder v. Dominguez, 2008 OK 53 (2008) 145 Nash v. GMC, 2007 OK Civ. App. 11 (2007)
  40. 40. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E O R E G O N Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of evidence+Daubert+*146 License Required Yes**147 Accident Reconstruction Yes148 Biomechanics Yes149 *The Oregon Supreme Court identified 17 factors that courts can use to judge the reliability of scientific evidence: 146 Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation, 331 Ore 285 (2000) 147 Oregon Revised Statutes §672.005 148 Dyer v. R.E. Christiansen Trucking, 318 Ore 391 (1994) 149 Hayes v. Huard, 108 Ore. App. 289 (1991) 1. General acceptance 2. Expert’s qualifications 3. The use which has been made of the technique 4. Rate of error 5. The existence of supporting literature 6. The novelty of the technique 7. The extent to which the technique relies on the subjective interpretation of the expert 8. The existence of standards governing the expert’s methodology 9. Presence of safeguards in the expert’s methodology 10. Analogy to other scientific techniques whose results are admissible 11. Acceptance among other experts in the field 12. The nature and breadth of the inference adduced 13. The clarity and simplicity with which the technique can be described and explained 14. The extent to which the basic data are verifiable by the court and jury 15. The availability of other experts to test and evaluate the technique 16. The probative significance of the evidence in the case 17. The care with which the technique was employed **To testify, an expert needs to obtain a temporary Oregon engineering license.
  41. 41. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E P E N N S Y LV A N I A Daubert, Frye or other. Frye150 License Required No151 Accident Reconstruction Yes152 Biomechanics Yes153 150 Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 576 Pa. 546 (2003) 151 Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 457 Pa. 321 (1974) 152 McManamon v. Washko, 2006 Pa. Super 245 (2006) 153 Raskin v. Ford Motor Company, 2003 Pa. Super 441 (2003)
  42. 42. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E R H O D E I S L A N D Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert154 License Required No155 Accident Reconstruction Yes156 Biomechanics * *There is no case law on biomechanics in Rhode Island. 154 DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Company, 729 A.2d 677 (1999) 155 Owens v. Payless Cashways, 670 A.2d 1240 (1996) 156 Frias v. Jurczyk, 633 A.2d 679 (1993)
  43. 43. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E S O U T H C A R O L I N A Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*157 License Required No158 Accident Reconstruction Yes159 Biomechanics Yes160 *To be admissible in South Carolina, expert testimony must be (1) beyond the knowledge of the average juror, (2) the expert must be qualified, and (3) the testimony must be reliable. To judge reliability, the courts look at whether the methods used by the experts were (1) peer reviewed, (2) used in applications outside of the present litigation, (3) monitored to ensure quality results, and (4) consistent with recognized scientific laws and procedures. 157 Watson v. Ford Motor Company, 389 SC 434 (2010) 158 Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 370 SC 362 (2006) 159 Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 370 SC 362 (2006) 160 Wilson v. Rivers, 357 SC 447 (2004)
  44. 44. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E S O U T H D A K O TA Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert161 License Required No162 Accident Reconstruction Yes163 Biomechanics Yes164 161 Supreme Pork, Inc., v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 SD 20 (2009 162 Mulder v. Tague, 85 SD 544 (1971) 163 Vansteenwyk v. Baumgartner Trees & Landscaping, 2007 SD 36 (2007) 164 Maroney v. Aman, 1997 SD 73 (1997)
  45. 45. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E T E N N E S S E E Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence/Daubert*165 License Required No166 Accident Reconstruction Yes167 Biomechanics Yes168 *Tennessee’s Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of expert testimony, but the courts have acknowledged the Daubert factors as helpful guidelines to determine the reliability of the testimony. 165 McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, 955 SW 2d 257 (1997) 166 Martin v. Sizemore, 78 SW 3d 249 (2001) 167 Flax v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation, 272 SW 3d 521 (2008) 168 Brown v. Crown Equipment Corporation, 181 SW 3d 268 (2005)
  46. 46. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E T E X A S Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert169 License Required Yes170 Accident Reconstruction Yes171 Biomechanics Yes172 169 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 SW2d 549 (1995) 170 Texas Occupations Code 1001.003 171 TXI Transportation Company v. Hughes, 306 SW3d 230 (2010) 172 Shipley v. Holt Texas, Ltd., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3773 (2010)
  47. 47. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E U TA H Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*173 License Required No174 Accident Reconstruction Yes175 Biomechanics Yes176 *Utah does not require evidence to have gained general acceptance to be deemed admissible, however, if evidence has attained general acceptance then it is almost always admissible. Utah does require that expert testimony be based on science with “inherent reliability” which means that the underlying scientific principles and methods must be reliable and the derived evidence must be helpful to the trier of fact. 173 Phillips ex rel. Utah State Department of Social Services v. Jackson, 615 P.2d 1228 (1980) 174 Crafts v. Hansen, 667 P 2d 1068 (1983) 175 Ryan v. Gold Cross Services, 903 P 2d (1995) 176 SBD v. State (State ex rel. ZD), 2006 UT 54 (2006)
  48. 48. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E V E R M O N T Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert177 License Required No178 Accident Reconstruction Yes179 Biomechanics * *To date, there is no case law on the admissibility of biomechanics testimony in Vermont. 177 USGen New England, Inc., v. Town of Rockingham, 2004 VT 90 (2004) 178 South Burlington School District v. Calcagni-Frazier-Zajchowski Architects, Inc., 138 VT 33 (1980) 179 Smith v. Gainer, 153 VT 442 (1990)
  49. 49. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E V I R G I N I A Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*180 License Required No181 Accident Reconstruction Yes**182 Biomechanics Yes***183 *Virginia has its own state test called the Spencer Standard. The court must “make a threshold finding of fact with respect to the reliability of the scientific method offered, unless it is of a kind so familiar and accepted as to require no foundation to establish the fundamental reliability of the system, such as fingerprint analysis.” **Accident reconstruction testimony is rarely admissible in Virginia. The speed of the vehicles in the accident specifically cannot be testified to in Virginia. ***Biomechanics engineers are not allowed to testify to injury causation. An expert must have a medical doctor’s license to diagnose and discuss the cause of specific injury. 180 Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 78 (1990) 181 Va. Code Annotated §54.1-400 182 Brown v. Corbin, 244 Va. 528 (1992) 183 Hollingsworth v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 279 Va. 360 (2010)
  50. 50. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E W A S H I N G T O N Daubert, Frye or other. Frye184 License Required No185 Accident Reconstruction Yes186 Biomechanics Yes187 184 Medcalf v. Department of Licensing, 133 Wn.2d 290 (1997) 185 Channel v. Mills, 77 Wn. App. 268 (1995) 186 Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn. 2d 237 (2002) 187 Ma’Ele v. Arrington, 111 Wn. App. 557 (2002)
  51. 51. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E W E S T V I R G I N I A Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert188 License Required No189 Accident Reconstruction Yes190 Biomechanics Yes191 188 Wilt v. Buracker, 191 W. Va. 39 (1993) 189 Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W. Va. 512 (1995) 190 Estep v. Mike Ferrell Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 223 W. Va. 209 (2008) 191 Estep v. Mike Ferrell Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 223 W. Va. 209 (2008)
  52. 52. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E W I S C O N S I N Daubert, Frye or other. Rules of Evidence*192 License Required No193 Accident Reconstruction Yes194 Biomechanics Yes195 *Evidence in Wisconsin is admissible if (1) it is relevant, (2) the witness is qualified, and (3) the evidence will assist the trier of fact. Reliability of the evidence is not a factor in determining its admissibility; instead, reliability goes to weight. 192 Rico v. Riva, 2003 Wi. App. 182 (2003) 193 Wisconsin Statute §443.01 194 Franz v. Brennan, 150 Wis. 2d 1 (1989) 195 Gaertner v. Holcka, 219 Wis. 2d 436 (1998)
  53. 53. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E W Y O M I N G Daubert, Frye or other. Daubert196 License Required No*197 Accident Reconstruction Yes198 Biomechanics Yes**199 *There is no license requirement, but in matters dealing with product failure or liability, experts are required typically to be very familiar with the specific brand and model of product at issue. Witnesses must also be qualified in every area in which they plan to give testimony. **There is a case where biomechanical evidence is allowed, but there are no cases in Wyoming in which a biomechanical expert has given testimony. 196 Bunting v. Jamieson, 984 P. 2d 467 (1999) 197 Herman v. Speed King Manufacturing Company, 675 P. 2d 1271 (1984) 198 Werner Enterprises v. Brophy, 2009 WY 132 (2009) 199 Hurley v. PDQ Transport, Inc., 6 P 3d 134 (2000)
  54. 54. A P U B L I C AT I O N O F E X A C T S O U R C E I N T E R E S T E D I N F O R E N S I C E N G I N E E R I N G R E C R U I T M E N T ? ExactSource is an industry leader in forensic engineering talent acquisition. For more information, please visit http://go.exactsource.com/forensic-engineering-recruiters I​nterested in talking more about how our services can assist with your firm’s forensic engineering needs? Contact our practice area lead today for a complimentary consultation. Chuck Detling Partner, ExactSource T 404.663.5218 | E cdetling@exactsource.com

×