Saturday, February 3, 2018

EARLY PYRAMID OF EXPERTS SEGMENT POST

Monday, March 28, 2011

THE PYRAMID OF EXPERTS EARLY VERSION FROM 03

An early version, but why not show the evolution of the 'notion'? This notion, that of combining experts from different fields for a political, or forensic, predetermined purpose, has been a very powerful tool for many apologists in many fields, not at all limited to law:

"The “Pyramid of Experts".

In eminent domain condemnors and their counsel often aren’t confronting an isolated property owner’s, appraiser’s, or CPA’s, value opinion. He, usually the appraisal expert witness, piggybacks other experts' opinions: engineers, planners, and others.

Whole engineering, or land planning, conclusions are perhaps even first incorporated into one another, and then, later, into his appraisal opinion, “lock stock and barrel”.

This creates what I have coined a “pyramid of experts”.

This happens because experts may rely on other experts, and in a complex world, often they must do so. See Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, secs. 301.1 and 704.1.

Thus it becomes necessary to attack not just an isolated opinion, but the opposing 'team', by attacking how it is put, and hangs, together.

Some pyramiding in a complex, and technical, world is legitimate, valid, and necessary; much is not.

In the real world, in this narrow field, predicate experts insulate value experts from responsibility, and can bolster false positions.

Predicate opinions can cast a false veneer of objectivity on value opinions.

A big assumption behind rules allowing incorporating predicate opinions is that they are independent and impartial.

Otherwise, pyramiding them is highly speculative and incompetent. See F. S 90.105.

Absent independence, the basis for incorporation vanishes.

Courts (in Florida) are reluctant to police evidentiary abuses and risk reversal, perhaps especially after Armadillo Partners, Inc. v. DOT, 849 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2003); see Dissent. See Meyer v. Caruso, 731 So.2d 118, refusing to follow Vallott v. Central Gulf Lines, 641 F.2d 347, cited in Ehrdhardt. See Ross Dress For Less, Inc. v. Irene Radcliff, 751 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Who should police the cottage industry of professional expert witnesses? The answer in Florida seems to be: juries.

The incorporated opinion must be the type reasonably relied on during professional practice when not in court. See Ehrdhardt 704.1, and Burnham v. State, 497 So.2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); See especially Bender v. State, 472 So.2d 1370 (Fla 3d DCA 1985).

More importantly, “field” shouldn’t mean the 'playing field' of eminent domain. Eminent domain is not a very large or neutral “field”.

The rule of evidence clearly contemplates experts who have a professional life in a larger field or subject, outside, and not involving the courtroom.

These larger fields, outside the courtroom, legitimize the process of in-court reliance.

An important implication is that predicate experts should be experts in fields based primarily “outside the courtroom”. See Bender.

Yet there is authority (in Florida, and probably elsewhere where the issue exists) for a narrow interpretation of 'field', or subject, for incorporating one opinion into another. See Ehrhardt 704.1 and Thunderbird v. Great Am. Ins., 566 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

In eminent domain, experts might even claim their “field” is testimony always for one side in litigation, only. Some even so hold themselves out, at their peril.

Most importantly, the rules of evidence are far behind courtroom practice, and tend merely to sanction the loose practices and prejudices of the 'team players'."

Term search, eg, pyramid experts, bonobo pyramid, Boca, natural moral pillars, ignoramitocracy, anti intellectualism, compartmentalization, The Stone, etc.

Compare NYT article today, re SOCIOLOGY forensic EXPERTS: