Statistics Expert Witnesses

Examination and Valuation Expert Witness Listings 

Find measurements specialists by tapping on one of the accompanying classes. Analysts discovered here may help with debates including mishap insights and wrongdoing measurements. They may give investigates information examination, financial measurements, and assessment of pieces of the pie. These experts are likewise accessible to think on inferential insights, numerical measurements, likelihood examination, retail deals investigation, hazard examination, hazard appraisal, factual examination, factual testing, and imperative measurements, just as related issues. 

You may restrict your quest for Statistics master observers to a particular zone by choosing a state starting from the drop box. 

Specialized topics: 

Antitrust Damages 

Patent Valuation 

Lost Wages 

Consolidations and Acquisitions 

Business Valuations and Losses 

Gluttonous Damages 

Annuity Fund Evaluation and Withdrawal Liability 

Society and Relationship Damage Analysis 

Fraud and FCRA Credit Damages 

Security Losses 

Business Damages 

Business Discrimination 

Life Care Plan and other Medical Cost Evaluations 

Organized Settlement Analysis 

Individual Consumption and Fringe Benefits 

Item Liability 

Injury Losses 

Lost Earnings Capacity 

Materialness of Frye Under Florida Law 

Under Florida law, Frye isn't material to all master declaration. One territory cut out by the Supreme Court as not falling inside the ambit of Frye is supposed "unadulterated assessment declaration." Such declaration depends on an individual's encounter and preparing, as opposed to logical standards or tests.15 As the Supreme Court clarified in Flanagan, "this declaration is examined by the jury as it investigates some other sincere belief or verifiable declaration by a witness."16 A court should be watchful, in any case, to guarantee itself that declaration professed to be founded absolutely on "individual" experience is indeed so derived.17 To the degree a specialist has used logical standards, studies, or tests to arrive at an assessment, at that point, to concede that assessment, those standards, studies, and tests should endure a Frye analysis.18 

A second, yet related, region to which courts hold Frye irrelevant is nonscientific strategy or thinking. In this manner, in Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24, 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the Third District presumed that a convention used to see whether an individual is affected by drugs was not logical on the grounds that the tests were "obviously inside the normal experience and comprehension of the normal individual." Frye didn't matter. 

Ultimately, while their thinking may now and again seem roundabout, some Florida cases have held Frye irrelevant to logical declaration that is neither new nor novel. For instance, the courts in State v. Meador, 674 So. 2d 826, 835 (Fla. fourth DCA 1996), and Williams held that the set up and by and large acknowledged system of even look nystagmus, or HGN, was not new or novel and in this manner need not be exposed to a Frye analysis.19 Recently, in any case, the First District held that courts will just seldom take legal notification of the legitimacy of a logical hypothesis or technique.20 

Testing Reliability Under Florida Law 

Through its open obligation statistics expert to Frye on account of new and novel logical proof, the Supreme Court of Florida has dismissed using the wide unwavering quality request molded by government courts under Daubert.21 However, it doesn't follow that dependability is certainly not an essential to the confirmation of logical proof in Florida. Despite what might be expected, both where Frye is a lot not appropriate, the unwavering quality of master declaration might be adequately tested under Florida law. 

• Novel Scientific Evidence 

When appropriately applied, Frye fills in as an incredible asset to dispose of untrustworthy proof from the court. For sure, as the Supreme Court clarified in Stokes, the very reason for Frye is to build up a methods for guaranteeing reliability.22 Thereafter, in supporting its choice to cling to Frye, the Supreme Court in Hadden saw that unwavering quality is an essential to suitability, and, as needs be, courts should"not license cases to be settled based on proof for which a predicate of dependability has not been established."23 

Those wishing to present new and novel logical declaration may endeavor to minimize the court's part in guaranteeing dependability by focusing on that Frye inspects just the overall acknowledgment of the standards or technique, and not the master's decisions. This is a right assertion of the law.24 However, the preliminary court should submerge itself in the science basic the well-qualified's assessment to decide, first, precisely what logical standards, revelations, strategies, or techniques are being depended upon, and, second, regardless of whether every one of them has been by and large acknowledged by the pertinent academic network. 

In Brim v. State, 25 Fla. L. Week after week D2537 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 11, 2000) (Brim II), for example, the court considered the suitability of results from DNA examination tests. Prior, in Brim I, the Supreme Court had held that well-qualified conclusions on the consequences of the correlation testing should be assessed as two unmistakable advances: a substance and natural cycle of analyzing a DNA test, and the factual philosophy used to distinguish the hugeness of that assessment. Following remand from the Supreme Court and a further evidentiary hearing under the steady gaze of the preliminary court, Brim II found that the synthetic and natural part was really established on eight particular advances and that the factual segment was established on two unmistakable advances. These means used rules that necessary discoveries of general acknowledgment in the applicable established researchers before a definitive assessment proof could be conceded. 

Another new illustration of the correct use of Frye to each logical "rule or discovery"25 hidden a well-qualified's assessment is Kaelbel Wholesale, Inc. v. Soderstrom, 26 Fla. L. Week by week D544 (Fla. fourth DCA Feb. 21, 2001). There, the court inspected logical declaration that a specific type of food contamination made the offended party build up a specific neurological issue. The court analyzed the gatherings' specialists' speculations to reveal the key natural standards on which they depended and, in the wake of looking at them in detail, inferred that the offended party's specialists did not have the essential logical help for their fundamental premises. Therefore, the ends to which those specialists affirmed were inadmissible.26 

Testing the dependability of novel logical proof won't change over the preliminary adjudicator into a researcher who can affirm whether the standards and speculations fundamental a specialist's decisions are, indeed, correct.27 Properly directed, in any case, a Frye challenge will do a lot to guarantee the unwavering quality of the master's decisions by necessitating that each hidden logical rule or disclosure be distinguished and that it be acknowledged by an away from of researchers in the important field.