The Legal Case of Roland William Dube
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper explains that, in the case of United States of America v. Roland William Dube, the prosecution did not bring in expert testimony to refute bank robber Dube's claims of insanity but instead relied upon the testimony of three lay witnesses. Although there are some problem with lay testimony, the author points out, that the significance of this case is that the judge allowed the lay testimony to essentially override the professional opinions of the psychiatrists. The paper concludes that this case showed that if the expert testimony is sufficiently weak, it can be overruled by a jury.
From the Paper:"There are some potential problems with the use of lay testimony. One is that lay testimony is always subject to interpretation. Lay witnesses are testifying about personal sensory experiences (Nordberg, 2007). All such experiences are interpretative to some extent. Another potential problem with the use of lay testimony is that it may not be interpreted as credible relative to expert testimony. Clearly in the Dube case it was, but this is a substantial risk for a legal team to take. Expert witnesses have credibility that stems from advanced training and perceived objectivity."
Sample of Sources Used:
- United States of America v. Roland William Dube. Retrieved April 7, 2009 from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/520/520.F2d.250.75-1034.html
- Nordberg, Peter. (2007). The Daubert Worldview. Daubert. Retrieved April 7, 2009 from http://www.daubertontheweb.com/Chapter_1.htm
Cite this Analytical Essay:
The Legal Case of Roland William Dube (2011, June 12) Retrieved July 14, 2020, from https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/the-legal-case-of-roland-william-dube-147682/
"The Legal Case of Roland William Dube" 12 June 2011. Web. 14 July. 2020. <https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/the-legal-case-of-roland-william-dube-147682/>