People v. Burhans, 2016 IL App (3d) 140462 (July). Episode 213 (Duration 5:38)
Harmless error to allow this sex case expert to testify about unsupported opinion testimony.
This was a predatory criminal sexual assault conviction with an expert nurse.
The expert was in pediatric nursing, advanced forensic nursing, and in evaluating children of suspected sexual abuse.
She testified that numerous research studies show that frequent physical and anogenital exams result in normal findings even in cases of abuse.
She also referenced other studies that analyzed injury to the anogenital area and concluded that the area healed “very rapidly and often without any residual injury.” She further testified that “95 percent of the time outside of 72 hours the exam is perfectly normal.”
Episode 082 – People v. Jones, 2015 IL App (1st) 121016 (April). (How To Admit An Expert Witness And Exclude An Unreliable One)
Experts may premise their testimony on information and opinions obtained from the reading of standard publications on which their opinions are based.
However, while an expert does not have to name the publication upon which she relied, the expert must show that the general consensus of the medical and forensic community recognizes the study upon which the expert relies.
In this case, the nurse neither identified any publication nor testified that the general consensus of the medical and forensic science community recognize the studies she cited, thus it was error for the trial court to overrule the defense objection to the nurses references to the conclusions of unidentified research studies.
Court talked about laying a proper foundation for experts but this is basically a 403 argument.