Search

To date, thirty innocent people have been falsely convicted in the United States of assault or homicide of children in their care. The prosecution mechanism for achieving these wrongful convictions was the use of experts to testify to "shaken baby syndrome" or "abusive head trauma" (SBS/AHT). While it is axiomatic that no one should ever shake or abuse a child, these twin diagnoses lack scientific support and are little more than unproven hypotheses. Despite this absence of scientific support, prosecution experts have told juries that children suffered from intentional abuse that could not have been accidental or caused by alternate nontratimatic medical causes, and .juries have convicted innocent parents and caregivers based on those assertions. The defense, on the other hand, has often struggled to present even one competing expert. These convictions were later overturned when defendants were able to present qualified experts to refute these hypothetical and dubious theories. But before that ultimate victory, individual lives and families were destroyed by wrongful incarceration. To prevent these miscarriages of justice, more funding for experts needs to be allocated to poor and middle-class defendants, where the prosecution's case rests largely on medical causation. In addition, defense attorneys need to better understand how to request funding for experts in these specialized cases. This Article reviews some of the innocence-based exoneration cases and their common themes, together with the scientific disputes about the theory of SBS/AHT. It also examines the critical need for defense experts, the constitutional right to experts, and the state laws that permit funding for experts for indigent defendants. It also provides suggestions for a better statutory scheme. Finally, the Article suggests that defense attorneys should request funding for experts to challenge the very legitimacy of expert testimony on SBS/AHT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In experimental work, researchers have found that policymakers discount the opinions of constituents with whom they disagree. We build on these results with a national sample of local policymakers in the United States, exploring whether communicators can prevent policymakers from discounting their opinions by providing evidence of their own knowledge about a topic. We find that policymakers discount the opinions of hypothetical constituents with whom they disagree, but there is evidence that providing unambiguous evidence about a letter-writer's positive traits can reduce this discounting. We conclude with a discussion of implications for theory as well as practical implications for communicating with policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With technology advancing at lightning speed, new forensic investigatory techniques have been developed. However, some convictions in criminal cases still depend on old and traditional techniques like using tracking dogs or K-9. It is common knowledge, dogs are intelligent animals and have keen sense of smell. In the early days, courts in America were hesitant to accept evidence from tracking dogs and have expressed many concerns in particular of dogs drawing inferences. However, tracking dog evidence has been accepted by courts in America since a decade ago. As dogs cannot go to the witness box to give evidence in court, their handlers are allowed to give evidence on behalf of their dogs in relation to the tracking and tracing. Courts in other jurisdictions have regarded dog handlers as an expert witness. This causes their opinions to be accepted as expert evidence. This writing discusses on the usage of tracking dogs by law enforcement agencies. Besides that, this articles also discusses the admissibility of tracking dog evidence by the courts in America. The methodology employed in this paper are descriptive, doctrinal, analytic and prescriptive in which case law, journal and books pertaining tracking dog evidence are analysed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most highly cited forensic practitioners in the United States were identified using a publicly available citation database that used six different citation metrics to calculate each person's composite citation score. The publication and citation data were gleaned from Elsevier's SCOPUS database, which contained information about ~7 million scientist each of whom had at least five entries in the database. Each individual was categorized into 22 scientific fields and 176 subfields, one of which was legal and forensic medicine (LFM). The database contained citation records for 13,388 individuals having LFM as their primary research discipline and 282 of these (2%) were classified as being highly cited. Another 99 individuals in the database had LFM as their secondary discipline, making a total of 381 highly cited forensic practitioners from 35 different countries. The career‐long publication records of each individual were compared using their composite citation scores. Of the 381 highly cited scientists, 93 (24%) had an address somewhere in the United States. The various branches of forensics they specialized in were anthropology, criminalistics, DNA/genetics, odontology, pathology, statistics/epidemiology, and toxicology. The two most highly cited scientists, according to their composite citation score, were both specialists in DNA/genetics. Bibliometric methods are widely used for evaluating research performance in academia and a similar approach might be useful in jurisprudence, such as when an expert witness is instructed to testify in court and explain the meaning of scientific evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides an up-to-date summary of how the US legal system treats evidence that uses the forensic stylistics method of authorship attribution analysis. Many scholars in both law and linguistics have written about some of the more notable cases on this issue, but none have attempted to trace the entire line of relevant case law since the advent of modern forensic stylistics, and relatively few summaries of any case law have appeared in the last ten years. It is hoped that a fresh look with updated legal research can add new insights for litigants, lawyers and linguists alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vocational experts have appeared and testified in the courts in the United States for the better part of half a century. The systematic process used by vocational experts to arrive at their conclusions has been well-documented, and many are comfortable dealing with questions requiring them translate a disabled person's physical limitations into reduced labor market access or loss of earning capacity. The same is not true when it comes to nonexertional limitations. This article speaks to the need for addressing the manner in which a vocational expert may deal with nonexertional limitations in a logical and defensible way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Additionally, although the AABIP guidelines specifically address tunnel-tract infections, favoring catheter removal when coexistent with pleural space infection, the article by Gilbert et al[5] does not differentiate between tunnel-tract and superficial IPC-related infections, from either a definitional or management perspective. Keywords: catheter; effusion; guideline; malignant; pleural EN catheter effusion guideline malignant pleural 920 923 4 02/25/21 20210301 NES 210301 Malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) are associated with reduced survival and contribute to significant morbidity and burden on the health-care system. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Medical malpractice occurs when a hospital or health-care provider through negligent act or omission results in an injury to a patient. More than 50% of otolaryngologists have faced at least 1 claim, with rhinology being the most litigated subspecialty. This study aims to analyze medical litigation trends in Rhinology from 2000 to 2017 in the United States. Methods: The Westlaw database was reviewed from 2000 to 2017. Data were compiled on the demographics of the plaintiffs, procedures, nature of damages, legal allegations, and the use of expert witnesses, physician demographics/practice characteristics, verdicts, indemnities, and county/state of case. Results: There were 75 cases that met inclusion criteria after review of 125 cases. Majority of cases went to trial over settlement (80%) and were found in the Northeast region of the United States (36%). Most common cited legal allegations were improper performance and failure to follow standard of care. The most common nature of injuries were eye injury (29%) and intracranial complications (27%). The highest payouts were for progression of disease followed by intracranial injury. Of the 75 total cases analyzed, 37 (49.3%) used expert witnesses. When an expert witness was used at trial, the verdict statistically favored the defendant (62.5%). Conclusions: Our analysis reveals the importance of meticulous surgical techniques and thorough preoperative evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science has historically held a position of high regard in society. Science is intimately connected to law. These disciplines meet in the courtroom. Due to the nature of civil and criminal disputes in the United States, litigators retain expert witnesses to explicate nuanced subjects, including science. Unfortunately, the common law system has not always favored sound science. This paper examines how science and law can work in concert to benefit all people. Some feel that scientists should simply educate courtrooms, but further scrutiny questions the feasibility of this approach. Understanding the sociology of scientific knowledge elucidates this debate and is applied to the forensic sciences. Science and law have the capacity to improve the human condition and increase equity among all people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article by Kocsis and Palermo, published in 2016, examined the findings of research which had assessed the validity of the investigative technique colloquially known as criminal profiling. These findings were subsequently considered within the framework of their relevance to the admissibility of the technique as a form of expert witness evidence. The overall conclusion was that a discrete facet of the profiling technique may satisfy some of the requisite legal criteria for admissibility in jurisdictions within the United States. However, this conclusion was based upon studies which used samples of senior forensic psychiatrists and psychologists as the tested profilers. In this regard, it was noted that this parameter may preclude the generalization of this conclusion to other professional groups who do not possess such qualifications. Accordingly, the present article explores the potential admissibility of law enforcement personnel who are not qualified forensic mental health practitioners tendering expert witness evidence in the nature of criminal profiling. The conclusion of this analysis is that law enforcement personnel who possess suitable expertise in the analytic task of criminal profiling arguably possess an analogous knowledge base akin to the aforementioned senior forensic psychiatrists and psychologists. On this basis, the conclusions in Kocsis and Palermo, published in 2016, may extend to such personnel and their potential to likewise provide expert witness evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic cough due to chronic bronchitis (CB) causes significant impairment in quality of life, and effective treatment strategies are needed. We conducted a systematic review on the management of chronic cough due to CB to update the recommendations and suggestions of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2006 guideline on this topic.Methods: This systematic review asked three questions: (1) What are the clinical features of the history that suggest a patient's cough-phlegm syndrome is due to CB? (2) Can treatment of stable CB improve or eliminate chronic cough? (3) Can therapy that targets chronic cough due to CB prevent or reduce the occurrence of acute CB exacerbations? Studies of adult patients with CB were included and assessed for relevance and quality. Based on the systematic review, guideline suggestions were developed and voted on by using the CHEST organization methodology.Results: The search strategy used an assortment of descriptors and assessments to identify studies of chronic cough due to CB.Conclusions: The evidence supporting the management of chronic cough due to CB is limited overall and of low quality. This article provides guidance on treatment by presenting suggestions based on the best currently available evidence and identifies gaps in our knowledge and areas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cognitive computing point‐of‐care decision support tools which ingest patient attributes from electronic health records and display treatment options based on expert training and medical literature, supplemented by real world evidence (RWE), might prove useful to expert and novice oncologists. The concordance of augmented intelligence systems with best medical practices and potential influences on physician behavior remain unknown. Methods: Electronic health records from 88 breast cancer patients evaluated at a USA tertiary care center were presented to subspecialist experts and oncologists focusing on other disease states with and without reviewing the IBM Watson for Oncology with Cota RWE platform. Results: The cognitive computing "recommended" option was concordant with selection by breast cancer experts in 78.5% and "for consideration" option was selected in 9.4%, yielding agreements in 87.9%. Fifty‐nine percent of non‐concordant responses were generated from 8% of cases. In the Cota observational database 69.3% of matched controls were treated with "recommended," 11.4% "for consideration", and 19.3% "not recommended." Without guidance from Watson for Oncology (WfO)/Cota RWE, novice oncologists chose 75.5% recommended/for consideration treatments which improved to 95.3% with WfO/Cota RWE. The novices were more likely than experts to choose a non‐recommended option (P < .01) without WfO/Cota RWE and changed decisions in 39% cases. Conclusions: Watson for Oncology with Cota RWE options were largely concordant with disease expert judged best oncology practices, and was able to improve treatment decisions among breast cancer novices. The observation that nearly a fifth of patients with similar disease characteristics received non‐recommended options in a real world database highlights a need for decision support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court Case Buck v. Davis, wherein Duane Buck was convicted for capital murder of his girlfriend Debra Gardner in 1995. Topics discussed include Buck's first state petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and racially prejudicial testimony of the court-appointed expert witness Walter Quijano to conduct Buck's psychological evaluation.

Daubert required judges to base their decisions about the admissibility of expert witness testimony in large part on the reliability and validity of empirical observations. Because judges have a wide array of duties and may not be equipped to understand the complexities of statistical analysis, some jurists have recommended that court-appointed experts assist judges in their gatekeeping function. To assist such experts in scrutinizing empirical papers, we propose a Structured Statistical Judgement (SSJ) that takes advantage of advances in the various statistical methods - such as effect sizes that adjust for error - which have allowed researchers to report increasingly more reliable and valid observations. We also include supplementary materials that court-appointed experts can use both as a codebook to operationalize the SSJ and as a quick reference that will aid consultation with judges. An initial application of the SSJ examined all 93 empirical articles published in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law and Law and Human Behavior in 2015 and resulted in excellent interrater reliability (π = 0.83; π = 0.95; π = 0.97), at the same time it indicated that a majority of the articles fail to include the comprehensive and transparent statistical analysis that would be most useful to courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) uses industry standards in its enforcement actions, particularly under the General Duty Clause. Topics discussed include the role of consensus standards in OSHA enforcement actions, boundaries of this doctrine, and the role of expert witnesses in the use of consensus standards.

Copyright of Cuadernos de Derecho Penal is the property of Cuadernos de Derecho Penal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The role of the expert witness in trials is a paradox. Judges and jurors need help with matters beyond their understanding, and judges are expected to act as gatekeepers to ensure that jurors are not fooled by misleading expert testimony. Yet, as gatekeepers, judges might not effectively distinguish sound from unsound expert testimony. As factfinders, judges and jurors both might have difficulty comprehending expert evidence, intelligently resolving conflicts between experts, and applying the scientific and technological evidence they hear to the larger dispute before them. This essay explores those problems and a variety of possible solutions, ranging from more effective ways parties might present technical information at trial, to educational interventions supervised by the court, to making juries more effective in performing their task, to more controversial measures, such as replacing conventional juries with special juries and replacing generalist judges with expert judges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our courts were not designed to consider the increasingly complex scientific and technical evidence needed to resolve contemporary legal disputes. Moreover, when conflicting evidence requires an understanding and interpretation of scientific or technical issues, allowing the parties to control the presentation of evidence places great strain on the judge and jury. This essay describes and evaluates three prototypical procedures that allow courts to appoint scientists and other experts independent of the parties to assist the court: 1) The appointment of an expert to advise the court and the parties regarding a disputed scientific issue by testifying in open court and being cross-examined by the parties; 2) The appointment of a "technical advisor" who assists the judge regarding scientific issues in much the same way that a law clerk assists regarding legal issues; and 3) The appointment of a special master who takes responsibility for the resolution of a portion of the case and prepares a written report for consideration by the court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The twin goals of any litigation are to arrive at a correct outcome and provide the parties with a sense that they were treated justly, even if they do not prevail. Adversarial proceedings are often perceived to be superior to inquisitorial proceedings with respect to the second goal but inferior with respect to the first. This is especially the case when proceedings involve expert testimony. In this essay, we discuss several relatively minor changes to typical adversarial processes that offer the potential of improving trial accuracy without disrupting the overall structure of adversarial proceedings. These changes include 1) alterations to the organization of the trial, including concurrent expert testimony; 2) alterations to the role of the jury, including taking notes, asking questions, and receiving written expert reports; and 3) formal expert witness codes of conduct designed to better arm experts to resist the adversarial pressures that lead to biased testimony. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article the use of evidence by United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in determining whether or not an advertisement is deceptive. The author notes that at the time of publication, the commission has shifted from relying on their own "expertise" in these matters, to the use of consumer testimony and surveys. A study was conducted on over 3,000 FTC cases involving deceptive advertising. The study identified four groups of evidence used in these cases, including internal commission evidence which reflects the commission's thoughts on the case, precedential evidence, which relies on the weight of previous decisions and external consumer and non-consumer evidence.

Expert testimony concerning risk and its communication to the trier of fact has important implications for some of the most significant legal decisions. In a simulated sexual violent predator hearing, we examined how mock jurors interpret and use recidivism risk expert testimony communicated either categorically, using verbal labels, or probabilistically, using numeric values. Based upon the STATIC-99R, we compared mock jurors' decision-making and verdicts when we manipulated the style of risk communication across four different risk levels. In terms of verdict decisions, we found that higher risk levels were associated with more commitment decisions, but that this relationship only existed for the categorical risk-communication format. We also replicated previous research demonstrating that participants overestimate recidivism risk in general, especially when higher risk is communicated categorically. Finally, our participants did not differentiate well between the four levels of risk offered, instead apparently employing a more simplistic dichotomy between "low" or "high" risk for both their verdict decisions and their thresholds for commitment. The legal and policy implications of our findings are discussed, as well as suggestions for more effective presentation of expert risk testimony. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of experts and their presentation of testimony in insanity cases remain controversial. In order to decrease possible expert bias associated with this testimony, a number of different alternatives to adversarial presentation have been suggested. Two such alternatives are the use of court-appointed experts and the use of concurrent testimony (or "hot-tubbing"), in which opposing experts provide testimony concurrently and converse with each other directly. An experiment using a sample of venire jurors (n = 150) tested the effect of these alternatives. Results indicate that participants' pre-existing attitudes towards the insanity defense had significant effects on their comprehension of expert testimony, their evaluations of the two opposing experts, and their eventual verdicts, over and above the presentation format (i.e., concurrent vs. traditional testimony) or the use of court-appointed experts (vs. traditional adversarial experts). When concurrent testimony was presented, defense-favoring experts were perceived by jurors as more credible than their traditional counterparts, though comprehension of the testimony did not increase; nor did the presentation format or the affiliation of the experts affect verdicts. The legal and policy implications of the incorporation of the hot-tubbing procedure to US courts are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a review of the U.S. trademark infringement lawsuit Tiffany v. Costco which resulted in favor of the jewelry company. It examines the applicability of the Daubert criteria for evaluating the admissibility of all expert opinions. It also discusses trademark infringement and the role of survey evidence in litigation and the factors that constitute a permissible consumer confusion survey.

Legal systems often require the translation of qualitative assessments into quantitative judgments, yet the qualitative-to-quantitative conversion is a challenging, understudied process. We conducted an experimental test of predictions from a new theory of juror damage award decision making, examining how 154 lay people engaged in the translation process in recommending money damages for pain and suffering in a personal injury tort case. The experiment varied the presence, size, and meaningfulness of an anchor number to determine how these factors influenced monetary award judgments, perceived difficulty, and subjective meaningfulness of awards. As predicted, variability in awards was high, with awards participants considered to be "medium" (rather than "low" or "high") having the most dispersion. The gist of awards as low, medium, or high fully mediated the relationship between perceived pain/suffering and award amount. Moreover, controlling for participants' perceptions of plaintiffs and defendants, as well as their desire to punish and to take economic losses into account, meaningful anchors predicted unique variance in award judgments: A meaningful large anchor number drove awards up and a meaningful small anchor drove them down, whereas meaningless large and small anchors did not differ significantly. Numeracy did not predict award magnitudes or variability, but surprisingly, more numerate participants reported that it was more difficult to pick an exact figure to compensate the plaintiff for pain and suffering. The results support predictions of the theory about qualitative gist and meaningful anchors, and suggest that we can assist jurors to arrive at damage awards by providing meaningful numbers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and subsequent revisions to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, was supposed to usher a reliability revolution. This modern test for admissibility of expert evidence is sometimes described as a reliability test. Critics, however, have pointed out that judges continue to routinely admit unreliable evidence, particularly in criminal cases, including flawed forensic techniques that have contributed to convictions of innocent people later exonerated by DNA testing. This Article examines whether Rule 702 is in fact functioning as a reliability test, focusing on forensic evidence used in criminal cases and detailing the use of that test in states that have adopted the language of the 2000 revisions to Rule 702. Surveying hundreds of state court cases, we find that courts have largely neglected the critical language concerning reliability in the Rule. Rule 702 states that an expert may testify if that testimony is "the product of reliable principles and methods," which are "reliably applied" to the facts of a case. Or as the Advisory Committee puts it simply, judges are charged to "exclude unreliable expert testimony." Judges have not done so in state or federal courts, and in this study, we detail how that has occurred, focusing on criminal cases, where the vast majority of criminal cases are brought in state and not federal court. We assembled a collection of 229 state criminal cases that quote and in some minimal fashion discuss the reliability requirement. This archive will hopefully be of use to litigators and evidence scholars. We find, however, that in the unusual cases in which state courts discuss reliability under Rule 702 they invariably admit the evidence, largely by citing to precedent and qualifications of the expert or by acknowledging but not acting upon the reliability concern. In short, the supposed reliability test adopted in Rule 702 is rarely applied to assess reliability. We call on judges do far more to ensure reliability of expert evidence and recommend sharper Rule 702 requirements. We emphasize, though, that it is judicial inaction and not the language of Rule 702 that has made the reliability test a myth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the challenges faced by the judges regarding the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal cases in the U.S., and includes Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. court case; disputes surrounding Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702.

The article focuses admissibility of expert witnesses in a criminal trial based on scientific knowledge in the U.S., and includes Department of Justice's take on the same; and President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology's report on the same.

The article focuses admissibility of expert witnesses in a criminal trial based on scientific knowledge in the U.S., and includes Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. court case on the same; and President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology's report on the same.

The article focuses admissibility of expert witnesses in a criminal trial based on scientific knowledge in the U.S., and includes Federal Rules of Evidence on testimony by forensic expert witnesses; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. court case; and Department of Justice's take on same.

The article focuses on the challenges faced by the judges regarding the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal cases in the U.S., and includes Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. court case; and U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which covers testimony by expert witnesses, allows a witness to testify "in the form of an opinion or otherwise" if "the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data" and "is the product of reliable principles and methods" that have been "reliably applied." The determination of "sufficient" (facts or data) and whether the "reliable principles and methods" relate to the scientific question at hand involve more discrimination than the current Rule 702 may suggest. Using examples from latent fingerprint matching and trace evidence (bullet lead and glass), I offer some criteria that scientists often consider in assessing the "trustworthiness" of evidence to enable courts to better distinguish between "trustworthy" and "questionable" evidence. The codification of such criteria may ultimately strengthen the current Rule 702 so courts can better distinguish between demonstrably scientific sufficiency and "opinion" based on inadequate (or inappurtenant) methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the challenges faced by the judges regarding the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal cases in the U.S., and includes Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. court case on the same; right to a speedy trial; and an account of Federal Rule of Evidence.

The article discusess the admissibility of expert testimony in the U.S., and includes Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. court case on the same; issues surrounding the reliability of forensic experts at trial; and impact of forensic sciences on law.

The article informs on a conversation held at the Symposium, that was held on October 27, 2017, at Boston College School of Law focusing on admissibility of expert testimony, and includes Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. court case on the same; and Federal Rule of Evidence rule 702.

The article focuses on admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness identifications in Kansas courts. Topics discussed include adoption of new guidelines for allowing experts on eyewitness testimony for testifying about eyewitness accuracy for protecting wrongful convictions of the defendants; court case Manson v. Brathwaite on the same; and problems of deoxyribonucleic acid evidence.

The article examines the examine New York's refreshing recollection doctrine in the context of trial and deposition preparation of witnesses as to the consequences of the witness's review of privileged writings. Topics discussed include the Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; refreshing recollection doctrine as developed and applied to testifying witnesses at a trial or deposition; and avoidance in the preparation of witnesses before they testify at a trial.

The article discusses the legal aspects of accountants' charging and retaining liens under Florida law, and it mentions family law practices and several Florida legal cases such as Litman v. Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England, P.A. which deals with the requirements for a valid charging lien. Timely notice is addressed, along with express or implied contracts and the payment of attorneys' fees out of a recovery. Expert witnesses are assessed.