Archive
02-16-2008, 08:49 PM
Posted By: <b>soliri</b><p>Simon,<br /><br />The following is part of a post from a Feb 15 post,<br /><br />3 - Mr. Koschal and myself were hired by Bill Daniels and deposed in a court case last year, Bill Daniels vs Mastronet. The judge did not feel that Mr. Koschal and I were scientifically trained, we are not, and based solely on Indiana law,<br /><br />Simon, once again you simply mislead the readers and misrepresents facts.<br /><br />The following is the wording for the court decision.<br /><br />The decision rendered by Judge Matthew C. Kincad reads as follows in regards to Simon and Koschal " Neither Simon nor Koschal is qualified to render any expert testimony.<br /><br />Evidence rule 702 with all courts abide by also requires that the purported expert be "qualified... by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education." Ind. Evid R. 702(a). Continues with, where an expert's testimony, as here, is based upon the expert’s skill or experience rather than on the application of scientific principles, the proponent of testimony must demonstrate " that the witness poses[es] sufficient skill, knowledge, or experience in the field to assist the trier of fact." McCutchan v. Blanck, 846 N.E.2d 256, 261 (Ind. Ct. App.2006. Neither Simon Nor Koschal Posses Sufficient skill, knowledge or experience in the fields in which they were asked to render opinions.<br /><br />I think must if not all will agree that no matter how you slice this pie the conclusion is obvious and is stated very well by Judge Kincad, Neither Simon Nor Koschal Posses Sufficient skill, knowledge or experience in the fields in which they were ask to render opinions.<br /><br />We look forward to your response.<br /><br /><br />SIGEXPORT<br />