Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Concurrent witness evidence or “hot tubbing” is a novel method of delivering expert witness evidence. It has been used primarily in civil litigation cases where evidence is tendered to the court by experts in a panel-style discussion. Experts from similar disciplines and often from competing interests are asked to give evidence together in an attempt to better understand the issues at hand and give clarity to areas of agreement and disagreement. In our experience, this method is of benefit, allowing key issues to be highlighted in a timely and efficient manner. Our experience of hot tubbing is relatively unique in the setting of forensic pathology and we present a case where evidence was given in this manner and briefly review its application.

Keywords

Forensic pathology Hot tubbing Concurrent evidence Expert witness evidence

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Federal Court of Australia [Internet]. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia; c1996-2015. Using the “hot tub” – how concurrent expert evidence aids understanding the issues; 2013 Oct 12 [cited 2015 Nov 14]. Available from: http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/publications/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j-20131012.

Cockburn

, Madden

Adapting to concurrent expert evidence in medical litigation. J Law Med. 2015 Mar; 22(3): 610–31. PMID: 25980193.

Freckleton

Selby H. Expert evidence: law, practice procedure and advocacy. 5th ed. Pyrmont (NSW): Thomson Reuters Legal Australia; 2013. Chapter 6.15, Concurrent expert evidence.; p. 391–407.

Welch

From witness box to the hot tub: how the “hot tub” approach to expert witnesses might relax an American finder of fact. J Int Commer Law Tech [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2015 Nov 14];5(3): 154–64. Available from: http://www.jiclt.com/index.php/jiclt/article/view/112/110.

McClellan

(Hon. Justice). New method with experts – concurrent evidence. J Court Innov [Internet]. 2010 Winter [cited 2015 Nov 14]; 3(1): 259–68. Available from: https://www.nycourts.gov/court-innovation/Winter-2010/jciMcClellan.pdf.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal [Internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; c2015. Use of concurrent evidence in the AAT; [cited 2015 Nov 14]. Available from: http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Directions%20and%20guides/Guideline-Use-of-Concurrent-Evidence-in-the-AAT.pdf.

Young

Expert witnesses: on the stand or in the hot tub – how, when and why? Formulating the questions for opinion and cross-examining the experts. Paper presented at: Commercial Court seminar on expert evidence; 2010 Oct 27.

Downes

Concurrent expert evidence in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal: the New South Wales experience [Internet]. Paper presented at: Australasian Conference of Planning and Environment Courts and Tribunals; 2004 Feb 27; Hobart. 17 p. Available from: http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/media/AAT/Files/Speeches%20and%20Papers/concurrent.pdf.

Family Court of Australia [Internet]. Parramatta (NSW): Family Court of Australia; c2015. The changing face of the expert witness; 2002 [cited 2015 Nov 14]. 105 p. Available from: http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/b81f88e5-d1a9-4d11-a093-b6795a2b9ae3/expertwitness.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=b81f88e5-d1a9-4d11-a093-b6795a2b9ae3.

Concurrent Expert Evidence,an Australian Forensic Pathology Experience

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References