Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 484 posts

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#11

Post by babyblueblanket »

twofornone wrote: post #8
runako wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that testimony is given in an adversarial setting, and answers are framed by the attorneys questioning. So the idea is that either yes, they will give unbiased testimony, or the attorneys will be able to make it plain to the jury that the testimony is biased.

Or option 3, the plaintiff counsel successfully convinces some or all members of the jury that a biased testimony is unbiased. These are "experts", after all. They're already starting from a position of credibility, and I don't think the defense lawyer is necessarily equipped to deconstruct whatever the "experts" spend their professional lives working on, regardless of the objectivity of their teatimony.

By this logic, no experts should be allowed in court unless the opposing lawyer has as much education as the expert in their subject.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#12

Post by obelos »

twofornone wrote: post #3

>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law. Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?

It is none of U of F's business whether or not their testimony is politically biased.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#13

Post by runako »

twofornone wrote: post #8
runako wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that testimony is given in an adversarial setting, and answers are framed by the attorneys questioning. So the idea is that either yes, they will give unbiased testimony, or the attorneys will be able to make it plain to the jury that the testimony is biased.

Or option 3, the plaintiff counsel successfully convinces some or all members of the jury that a biased testimony is unbiased. These are "experts", after all. They're already starting from a position of credibility, and I don't think the defense lawyer is necessarily equipped to deconstruct whatever the "experts" spend their professional lives working on, regardless of the objectivity of their teatimony.

You are correct! But this is the situation with our entire adversarial legal system. We have in general not solved this by excluding expert witnesses, so it is indeed out of the ordinary to block testimony like this.

For example, police have a long-documented history of not giving reliable testimony. And yet these "experts" provide testimony at most criminal trials. If a state is willing to allow its police to provide expert testimony, why not its other employees?

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#14

Post by twofornone »

babyblueblanket wrote: post #11
twofornone wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or option 3, the plaintiff counsel successfully convinces some or all members of the jury that a biased testimony is unbiased. These are "experts", after all. They're already starting from a position of credibility, and I don't think the defense lawyer is necessarily equipped to deconstruct whatever the "experts" spend their professional lives working on, regardless of the objectivity of their teatimony.

By this logic, no experts should be allowed in court unless the opposing lawyer has as much education as the expert in their subject.

If the subject is politically polarized then I am inclined to agree. Its an open secret that right leaning opinions are taboo across academia. That doesn't actually mean such opinions are wrong.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#15

Post by CoastalCoder »

elliekelly wrote: post #10

I have a colleague who does environmental litigation. (Think Erin Brockovich.) They have a big civil case against a large energy company in a southern, “energy-friendly” state. They had an expert witness all lined up - a professor at the (public!) state university. Well this expert happened to be up for tenure and was (allegedly) told in no uncertain terms that, should they testify as an expert witness in this case,…

I'm curious if that approach to eliminating expert witnesses passes legal muster.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#16

Post by endisneigh »

this doesn't sound like a big deal. UF is saying that professors cannot both receive compensation for your testimony and testify as a member of the university.

in other words, they can testify for free, or they cannot use their the fact that they're UF professors as part of their credentials without prior approval, or do anything that's a "conflict of interest" as defined by UF themselves.

the article itself admits that plenty of professors at UF serve as expert witnesses, but this particular case is unique because UF professors want to testify against the State of Florida, which funds UF.

obviously UF wouldn't want that.

---

which organizations will allow you to testify against an entity that funds the organization without said organizations approval. free speech aside, obviously no organization will let you do that in your capacity as a member of said organization, but nothing is stopping you from quitting and testifying anyway.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#17

Post by jensensbutton »

twofornone wrote: post #3

>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law. Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?

What does "politically unbiased" mean here, exactly? The way I interpret what you wrote is that you're against the current push for making it easier to vote and anything that disagrees with that will be seen as "politically biased" by you. Is that correct?

I guess the other option is that you disagree with expert witnesses as a concept?

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#18

Post by JKCalhoun »

twofornone wrote: post #3

>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law. Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?

If not people who specialize in voting rights who exactly would you expect to be brought forth to lend their expertise?

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#19

Post by toss1 »

twofornone wrote: post #8
runako wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that testimony is given in an adversarial setting, and answers are framed by the attorneys questioning. So the idea is that either yes, they will give unbiased testimony, or the attorneys will be able to make it plain to the jury that the testimony is biased.

Or option 3, the plaintiff counsel successfully convinces some or all members of the jury that a biased testimony is unbiased. These are "experts", after all. They're already starting from a position of credibility, and I don't think the defense lawyer is necessarily equipped to deconstruct whatever the "experts" spend their professional lives working on, regardless of the objectivity of their teatimony.

Sure, the defense lawyer may not be personally "equipped to deconstruct whatever the "experts" spend their professional lives working on".

However, the defense team certainly has the full capability (including budget) to find their own experts in the field to present to the jury whatever counter-arguments may exist to the plainiff's experts.

If the defense fails to do so, it is either their malpractice, or the reality that they actually have no effective argument.

Either way, even with your original assumption that those plaintiff experts are biases, that is ZERO reason to prevent their testimony.

The only reason to prevent their testimony is that the defense has no real case, and they know it.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#20

Post by f154hfds »

josefresco wrote: post #7
twofornone wrote: post #3

>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law. Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?

You don't need a "voting rights professor" to tell you what they're doing in Florida is undemocratic, un-American and 100% politically motivated.

As a curious non-Floridian, what about the bill is objectionable? I think I found the text here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/90/BillText/er/HT...

I personally find issue with the idea of convicts being unilaterally disbarred from voting while I also feel that verifying the identification of the voter is pretty crucial to a believable vote. But I didn't read the whole thing. There might be more objectionable material that I missed or didn't understand properly.

Post reply on HN