Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
November 2, 2006
LAW: I Don't Re...What Was I Saying?

Motion of Scooter Libby to introduce an expert witness on human memory is denied. A sample of the proposed testimony:

To support his faulty memory defense, the defendant seeks to introduce at trial the testimony of Dr. Bjork "to show that it is entirely plausible, given how memory has been found to function, that Mr. Libby or the government witnesses - or both - have innocently confused or misremembered the conversations on which this case turns." Def.'s Mot. at 2. Specifically, Dr. Bjork would testify about thirteen scientific principles concerning human memory, including the process by which memory is encoded, stored, retained, and retrieved and various scientific bases for memory errors including "content borrowing," source misattribution, subsequent recall, divided attention, and "retroactive interference."

Now, while it's entirely possible that Libby may have at least a partial defense based on faulty recollection, I generally regard the proposal of an expert of this type as a bad sign for the defendant. It just reeks of quackery.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 6:29 PM | Law 2006-08 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg