Pacemaker PTSD? Pacemaker PTSD?

Pacemaker PTSD?

This is primarily a case for cardiologists, cardiac nurses and anaesthetists with a learning point for psychiatric experts. Viewed from outside the...
Advising as to the applicable law Advising as to the applicable law

Advising as to the applicable law

The detail of this judgment is for experts who conduct capacity assessments. Two points arise of more general interest. First, the expert, who had...
Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words

Evidentiary reliability and the meaning of words

This case has a number of important features of general interest. It illustrates the importance of assessing the reliability of a subject’s...
Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

Podcast Episode 11: AI and the Expert Witness

In the 11th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at how AI is being used by Expert Witnesses. We discuss general developments related...
EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

EWI publishes new Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

We have just refreshed our guidance on ‘Expert Discussions and Joint Statements' in the EWI Knowledge Hub...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Lost in translation
Sean Mosby 442

Lost in translation

bySean Mosby

 

Summary

In this patent case, the judge noted that neither expert was a native English speaker and both had difficulties with questions put to them during cross-examination. The misstep of one expert over the word “buckling”, which he had used in his report, and his use of a translator during cross-examination for reference, led the judge to approach his written evidence with a degree of caution.

Learning points

Learning points for experts:

  • If you have been asked to give expert evidence in a language in which you are not fully proficient, have an honest conversation with your instructing party about your ability to do so.

  • Remember that cross-examination can be a lengthy, stressful and tiring process, and you may be required to use the language for longer periods than you are accustomed to.

  • Make sure you fully understand the meaning of all of the terms and language that you and your opposing expert have used your reports.

  • In writing your report, it can be tempting, when you don’t know the exact right word, to translate the term from your native language into the target language. However, this could backfire if you fail to recall the meaning of that word during cross-examination.

  • For this reason, you should also be especially vigilant about making wording changes suggested by your instructing party.

  • If you are not fully confident in your abilities, consider using a translator both for your report and in court.

Learning points for instructing parties:

  • If your expert is not a native speaker of the language used in the proceedings, it is worth assessing their spoken and written abilities in that language. 

  • Remember that language skills can be impacted by factors associated with legal proceedings such as stress, tiredness, and unfamiliar surroundings. 

  • Be careful when suggesting changes to the language used in reports in order to express a concept more naturally in the target language.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.