ORMOND, John Charles, Jr., cormond@aol.com, Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond, and Garner, PO Box 11006, Columbia, SC 29211

Scientists of all disciplines will play an increasingly important role in both judicial and administrative outcomes as the subject matter within disputes and regulatory actions become more technical.  Recent Federal and State cases regarding scientific testimony allow the trial level judge a great deal of discretion in either allowing or prohibiting proffers of expert testimony.  Geologists called upon to render expert opinions in a judicial matter must conform to new standards required of scientific testimony and many times may need to assist the attorney involved in the case as to relevant facts and issues for review by the Judge.
    Even simple geological concepts and theories used in an expert opinion may be subject to judicial scrutiny prior to allowing such evidence in front of a fact finder.  An expert geological witness can overcome this scrutiny by carefully demonstrating that the opinion to be rendered has met with procedural diligence and satisfied most if not all the factors set forth by the state and federal supreme courts within the last year.  Moreover, a geological expert may the assist the attorney in determining whether opposing experts may have failed to demonstrate such diligence.  Three practical examples of the requirements of geological opinion regarding environmental contamination in the Piedmont and the coastal plain along with an issue of negligence within the oil business demonstrate the factors required and the advantages of going through these hoops.
    Expert evidence and opinion is allowed to assist a decision maker in an area not readily understood by lay persons and such evidence is ripe for misuse.  Geologists doing expert work in lawsuits, contested administrative hearings or geologists called to give evidence or opinion testimony for agency rule-making functions have a duty to provide a solid basis for their opinions.  Opposing scientific experts will often disagree on interpretations of data, on the relevance and significance of data and even on problems with an opponent’s use of or implementation of a specific methodology.  However, it should be rare for expert scientists to disagree on the merits of the basic scientific method used to render a scientific opinion.