6 ms·
That’s… Wow, since when can someone bar someone else from testifying in court? I thought it was the pursuit of truth?
by ajay-b 5y ago
That’s… Wow, since when can someone bar someone else from testifying in court? I thought it was the pursuit of truth?
- mankyd 5y agoExpert witnesses are hired as contractors; paid for their testimony. If they were being subpoenaed - compelled to be a witness - I am sure the matter would be different.
- inetsee 5y agoA naive legal question: can the plaintiffs subpoena the professors as expert witnesses?
- sushibowl 5y agoGenerally, no. Under the rules of civil procedure, a subpoena to testify may be quashed if it "requires disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s study not requested by a party." expert witnesses are much different from a regular witness since they have an exception to the hearsay rule (can testify about things they didn't directly observe themselves), their credentials are examined, they make a report, they are required to be paid, etc. Because of this you cannot subpoena them like a regular witness. more info https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/can-a-non-retained-expert-be-compelled-to-testify/ https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/can-a-non...
- Consultant32452 5y agoThis is not an endorsement, but a clarification. They're allowed to testify in court. They are just not allowed to get paid to do it, nor are they allowed to use their affiliation with the university as credentials when testifying because they are not speaking for the university.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- chuckee 5y agoI couldn't find this information in the NPR article - do you have a different source?
- Consultant32452 5y agoThis is from the article: >"It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin," the school said in an email to NPR. "Rather, the university denied requests of these full-time employees to undertake outside paid work that is adverse to the university's interests as a state of Florida institution." The operative phrase there is "outside paid work." I believe you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it. That is to say, you were supposed to read it and walk away misinformed due to the framing.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago> The operative phrase there is "outside paid work." > you interpreted NPR's article exactly the way NPR intended you to interpret it. This take seems born out of bias, one that comes with prebuilt animosity toward NPR while assuming the university admin's stated reason is the sole and actual reason for denying testimony. It's notable that the university could defuse the situation by clarifying what are acceptable avenues for the professors to testify - and then doesn't do that.
- Consultant32452 5y agoAsking a clarifying question is something a journalist would do.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoI agree and agree the article is short on questions that the journalist should have brought up, even if they couldn't answer it (eg: names of the specific admins involved, how they got those positions and who they are beholden to).