|
|
Guidelines to Selecting a Security Negligence,
Premises Liability Expert
By: Joseph A. LaSorsa. CPP
U.S. Secret Service (Ret.)
Security Expert, Security Consultant
Miami, Fort Lauderdale and South, FL
Searches for quality “Security Experts” are conducted
on a daily basis by attorneys, V.I.P.’s and corporate executives.
Most experts list themselves with referral agencies or expert database
web sites. The experts usually list their experience, background and
credentials and some of the sites require a fee to be paid by the
experts.
Selecting the "right" expert witness is one of the most
critical decisions made when preparing a case for settlement and/or
trial. The following are topics and considerations which should be
addressed in the selection process
• Expert’s Specific Area of Expertise
Inasmuch as, there are thousands of categories of expert witnesses,
it is critical to have a full understanding of both the general
type of expertise sought and the specific area in which the expert
will be asked to opine in. It is very important to determine the
specific area of the Expert’s expertise. For example, in general,
my expert category of expertise is Security; however, my specific
area of expertise is Security Negligence as it relates to Premises
Liability. I can also testify as a U.S. Counterfeit Currency Expert
and as an Expert in Criminal and Administrative Investigative Protocols,
in both the Government and the Private Sector.
• The Expert’s Background and Qualifications
and the Daubert Hearing
What is a “Daubert Hearing”?
• A term from a civil case entitled: Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)
• The opinion governs the admissibility of scientific evidence
in Federal court and many state and local jurisdictions which have
adopted it.
Daubert Opinion States that:
• the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded “general acceptance”
tests for admissibility of novel scientific evidence;
• the rigid “general acceptance” test, which arose
from Frye v United States, 293 F2d. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), is at odds
with the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Daubert Opinion States that:
• the trial judge must still screen scientific evidence to
ensure it is relevant and reliable;
• “the focus, of course, must be solely on principles
and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate;”
• and, factors the court should consider include:
– testing and validation
– peer review
– rate of error
– “general acceptance”
• Characteristics of a “quality”
Expert Witness?
Practical work experience
Trial and testifying experience
Education, Training, licenses and certifications
Publications and Articles
Professional Organizations and Affiliations
• The Expert Should be Credible, Objective and Honest
• Have a Fair and Reasonable Fee Schedule
• The Expert Should be Cooperative and able to make
himself/herself Available
• The Expert Must Be Able to Produce a
Concise, Well Written Report
The report should convey certainty, objectivity,
and truth. The Expert should be able to stand by his opinions. He/she
should be able to read the jury’s body language and react
to it, positively; present a polished, clean appearance; be friendly
and at the same time courteously professional; speak clearly and
audibly; present a believable appearance; should always make adequate
eye contact; appear cool, calm and collected.
• The Expert Should Be Able to handle Obstacles and
Difficult Questions
• Last, but not Least – The Personal Interview
An Expert’s background and credentials are critically
important, but nothing should supersede picking the Expert’s
brain and putting him/her to the test. Some self-qualified Expert’s
can’t really cut the mustard and can be easily weeded out with
a few basic questions at the onset of the selection process. Many
Security Experts hang their hat simply on their extensive Law Enforcement
background. The truth be known, most Law Enforcement agents/officers
lack any great deal of security expertise. Most of us in this profession
have had to acquire our current expert status rising through the ranks
of the Private Sector. There is a major learning curve when a Law
Enforcement person retires and transitions into the Private Sector.
However, that topic id the subject of separate article
If the person conducting the search is not somewhat familiar with
the Expert’s area of specific expertise, then, he/she should
make a concerted effort to get somewhat up to speed, in order to better
prepare themselves for a personal interview of the Expert.
Once the person responsible for selecting or hiring is comfortable
with all of the above factors and considerations, then, he/she can
make an intelligent selection decision.
|
|