Michael T. Motley, Ph.D. has over thirty-five years of experience in the fields of Communication & Psycholinguistics. Dr. Motley serves as an expert witness for opinions on the clarity, lack of clarity, and most likely interpretation of common messages such as warning labels, instructions, advertising, contracts, waivers, and so forth. He has served on over 30 cases; about 2/3 for plaintiff and 1/3 for defense. Dr. Motley is a Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of California at Davis. He has authored almost 200 books, articles, and research papers in communication and psycholinguistics. He has won eighteen excellence awards for his research and was recognized as among the "Top 1%" of communication scholars of the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. Areas of Expertise:
Communication Messages: Meaning, Ambiguity, Likely and Alternate Interpretations, Communicative Intention
Adequacy/Inadequacy of Messages: Product Warnings, Instructions, Waivers, Advertisements
Male / Female Misunderstandings: Sexual Consent/Resistance, Date Rape
Expert testimony & Consultation
Opinion on Adequacy of Communication Messages
Opinion on Likely Consumer Interpretation of Warnings, Instructions, Advertising
Opinion on Likely Intrepretation of Sexual Resistance/Consent Messages and Behaviors
Social-scientific testing of expert opinion (his and others')
If you do work as an expert witness on warnings, you probably feel quite confident that you know a bad warning when you see one (and would know a good one if you ever saw one). Of course, backing up our opinion with some version of, "I just know" doesn't make for very strong testimony. Indeed, we can count on our criteria being challenged by opposing council even when we can articulate them.
My first expert witness case involved a man who was injured using a chinup bar designed to fit within a door frame. The bar has rubber suction cups at each end, and its length is adjusted by twisting its two sections together or apart for a telescoping effect.
In this volume, recognized scholars discuss ways they have applied communication research to court cases as an expert witness or consultant in such areas as jury selection, pretrial publicity, sexual consent, warning adequacy, hindsight bias, jury decision making, document authorship identification, graphics and simulations and several others. For attorneys, the volume may provide an introduction to ways that communication scholarship can inform their future cases.
This book offers solutions for communication problems that erupt in our daily lives. By focusing on socially meaningful applied research in communication, this book offers a new direction for interpersonal communication studies. Featuring original studies that are practical and relevant, chapters provide readers with a balanced combination of rigorous research with pragmatic application.
Dr. Palmer Morrel-Samuels is a Research Psychologist with extensive training and experience in Statistical Analysis and Assessment Design. He has done a considerable amount of research and applied work on communication, testified to the U.S. congress on employee motivation and its linkage to objective performance metrics, published several articles on survey design in Harvard Business Review, among others, and wrote several patents to assist in the administration and analysis of workplace assessments. Dr. Morrel-Samuels currently teaches graduate courses on survey design and research methodology at the University of Michigan.
Litigation Services: Dr. Morrel-Samuels' education, practical experience, and distinguished authorship have made him a valuable resource for providing expert services in legal cases where workplace surveys or assessments are at issue, including:
Statistical analysis of very large datasets, measuring the impact of corporate culture on performance and race discrimination.
Analysis of a survey's validity, reliability, objectivity, fairness, accuracy, confidentiality, freedom from response bias, and conformance to The Uniform Guidelines pertaining to all workplace assessments.
Statistical analyses of performance-related and survey-related data.
Desiging and conducting employee and workplace surveys, including Electronic surveys.
Program evaluations, especially when used in hiring, firing, or other job actions.
Expert Witness Experience includes: Assisted the NAACP in its amicus brief for the Ricci discrimination case. Was the sole statistician in a successful $100M breach of contract case (Tower Automotive v. UNOVA) that required analyzing 4 million rows of data. Testified for the ICC’s International Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Has successfully withstood Daubert challenges - most recently from the City of Indianapolis in a large discrimination case involving the city's fire department.
For more information visit our website at www.ExpertWitnessPsychology.com
This might come as a shock: Employees in large corporations sometimes mistakenly believe that they have been discriminated against. Admittedly, discrimination does occur, both in society and in the workplace. And as most attorneys know, many discrimination cases concern claims of either adverse treatment or adverse impact. In both types of litigation, employees believe that they have been discriminated against because of their minority status. In disparate treatment cases, plaintiffs must show that they were treated differently because of that status, and incriminating statements-express or implied-must be admitted as evidence to suggest a discriminatory intent. In contrast, disparate impact cases typically address the discriminatory impact of an ostensibly neutral policy, decision, or program, so plaintiffs rely upon objective data from the entire corporation to prove a discriminatory outcome.
THERE'S NO DOUBT that companies can benefit from workplace surveys and questionnaires. A GTE survey in the mid-1990s, for example} revealed that the performance of its different billing operations, as measured by the accuracy of bills sent out, was closely tied to the leadership style of the unit managers.
This might come as a shock: Employees in large corporations sometimes mistakenly believe that they have been discriminated against. Admittedly, discrimination does occur, both in society and in the workplace. And as most attorneys know, many discrimination cases concern claims of either adverse treatment or adverse impact.
Effective evidence-based managelnent requires analyzing data from a broad array of sources and conducting carefully designed pretest-posttest comparisons. However, our experience suggests that few businesses take that process to the next level by building merged datasets that can be used for rigorous pretest-posttest comparisons and meaningful statistical analyses.
No contemporary guide exists for using statistics to prove causality in court. We outline a new theory explaining comprehension of causal graphs, and claim four hallmarks of causality are critical: Association, Prediction, Exclusion of Alternative Explanations, and Dose Dependence.
We distinguish between reverse discrimination and over-correction, arguing that the former should be used only to describe cases where well-qualified non-minority applicants are unjustifiably denied positions in organizations run by and/or staffed by minorities. Similarly, we argue over-correction should be used to describe well-qualified non-minority applicants who are unjustifiably denied positions in organizations run by non-minorities.
Daniel B. Kennedy, Ph.D., is FCA’s principal consultant and is Board Certified in Security Management. Dr. Kennedy has had extensive specialized training in various aspects of Criminal Behavior, Policing Operations, Corrections Operations, and Private Sector Security Management. He specializes in crime foreseeability issues, appropriate standards of care in the security industry, and analyses of the behavioral aspects of proximate causation.
Dr. Kennedy has testified in cases involving the appropriate standards of care for the use of deadly force, vehicle pursuits, emergency psychiatric evaluations, prisoner health care, prevention of prisoner suicide, positional asphyxia/excited delirium, and “suicide by cop.” He also evaluates numerous lawsuits concerning premises liability for negligent security in the private sector involving properties both in the U.S. and overseas.
As is probably true for many of us in the workplace, my career has not turned out quite as I envisioned it would some 40 years ago. More specifically, as a beginning graduate student in sociology, I had no idea I would eventually practice forensic criminology or be in a position to write about what follows. In fact, I had never heard of forensic criminology (FC) until years later and, I believe, neither had my academic colleagues. It was only after I began to practice as a forensic criminologist and to identify myself as one that the parameters of this fascinating area of expertise began to reveal themselves more fully to me.
Social scientists play an increasingly important role in the prosecution and defense of both criminal and civil matters before the courts. An expanding area of forensic sociology and criminology involves the analysis of crime foreseeability and security standards of care as they relate to the question of liability for negligent security. Criminologists analyze prior crimes at a location and consider the totality of circumstances in order to determine foreseeability.
Criminal or offender profiling in one form or another has existed for many centuries. In more recent history, profiles have been constructed for such notorious criminals as Jack the Ripper, the Boston Strangler, the Unabomber, the Beltway Sniper, the Railway Rapist, the Mad Bomber, and the Green River Killer, all with varying degrees of validity.
In ancient Rome, a forum was a public place where important governmental debates were held. Sometimes it was a town square or even a marketplace. Gradually, the forum also became a sort of public ‘courthouse,’ where various trials of importance to the citizenry were held
Practicing Forensic Criminology draws on examples from actual court cases and expert witness reports and testimony to demonstrate the merits and uses of substantive criminological knowledge in the applied setting of civil law and the courts. Throughout the book, the authors provide a highly readable, informative discussion of how forensic criminologists can apply their research and teaching skills to assist judges and juries in rendering legal decisions.
Victor Lofgreen, PhD has over 30 years of experience and education in the fields of Corrections and Community Development. He is a prison and jail consultant who conducts cases analysis and develops reports to support litigation on prison and jail issues. Experience - Dr. Lofgreen has served as the CEO of a State Adult Correctional Institution and the Division Chief of a State Planning Agency for Corrections. He has authored numerous professional papers and articles on topics within his area of expertise as well as Agency Policy and Procedure Manuals and training materials. Litigation Support - Dr. Lofgreen's expertise is in Jail and Prison Policy and Procedures related to the standard of care for inmates by local, State, and Federal correctional agencies. His services are available to counsel representing plaintiff and defendant and include case review, case study and data analysis, report of Expert Opinion based on the evidence included in the case study, deposition, and trial testimony as needed. Areas of Expertise: