Expert testimony by linguists in U.S. courts

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Finegan, Edward
Data de Publicação: 2021
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://ojs.letras.up.pt/index.php/LLLD/article/view/10951
Resumo: This article describes procedures surrounding expert testimony in U.S. federal courts, exemplifying with details of an expert’s experience in one case. The exemplar is a civil (not criminal) case brought for defamation, tried to a jury in a federal district court, and subsequently appealed to a higher court. The article discusses reasons for which attorneys retain expert linguists, why courts welcome experts when their testimony is deemed helpful in deciding a disputed fact but exclude them if they are not qualified or the profered testimony is deemed insuficiently helpful or possibly prejudicial to a jury. The article concludes with observations about the pros and cons of serving as a linguistics expert in contested legal matters in an adversarial system.
id RCAP_0ea3e116540cf6c908894814b6b2bbd1
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.letras.up.pt/ojs:article/10951
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Expert testimony by linguists in U.S. courtsArticlesThis article describes procedures surrounding expert testimony in U.S. federal courts, exemplifying with details of an expert’s experience in one case. The exemplar is a civil (not criminal) case brought for defamation, tried to a jury in a federal district court, and subsequently appealed to a higher court. The article discusses reasons for which attorneys retain expert linguists, why courts welcome experts when their testimony is deemed helpful in deciding a disputed fact but exclude them if they are not qualified or the profered testimony is deemed insuficiently helpful or possibly prejudicial to a jury. The article concludes with observations about the pros and cons of serving as a linguistics expert in contested legal matters in an adversarial system.Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto2021-11-04info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://ojs.letras.up.pt/index.php/LLLD/article/view/10951por2183-3745Finegan, Edwardinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-01-13T03:48:00Zoai:ojs.letras.up.pt/ojs:article/10951Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:31:25.741107Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Expert testimony by linguists in U.S. courts
title Expert testimony by linguists in U.S. courts
spellingShingle Expert testimony by linguists in U.S. courts
Finegan, Edward
Articles
title_short Expert testimony by linguists in U.S. courts
title_full Expert testimony by linguists in U.S. courts
title_fullStr Expert testimony by linguists in U.S. courts
title_full_unstemmed Expert testimony by linguists in U.S. courts
title_sort Expert testimony by linguists in U.S. courts
author Finegan, Edward
author_facet Finegan, Edward
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Finegan, Edward
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Articles
topic Articles
description This article describes procedures surrounding expert testimony in U.S. federal courts, exemplifying with details of an expert’s experience in one case. The exemplar is a civil (not criminal) case brought for defamation, tried to a jury in a federal district court, and subsequently appealed to a higher court. The article discusses reasons for which attorneys retain expert linguists, why courts welcome experts when their testimony is deemed helpful in deciding a disputed fact but exclude them if they are not qualified or the profered testimony is deemed insuficiently helpful or possibly prejudicial to a jury. The article concludes with observations about the pros and cons of serving as a linguistics expert in contested legal matters in an adversarial system.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-11-04
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://ojs.letras.up.pt/index.php/LLLD/article/view/10951
url https://ojs.letras.up.pt/index.php/LLLD/article/view/10951
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 2183-3745
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130769218600960

Registros relacionados