With the recent tragic shooting events across America, we are seeing more attention given to expert witnesses called upon to provide their professional analysis across a variety of subject matters related to the shootings. Here are a couple stories that we are following:
Dallas Shootings
As the nation searches for peace, understanding, and answers in the wake of these shootings, experts are analyzing evidence, witnesses, and any leads to piece together the details. In Dallas, where five police officers were killed, seven officers were wounded, and two civilians were hurt, the investigation is well underway. Dallas police Chief David Brown said: “Through our investigation of some of the suspects, it’s revealed to us that this was a well-planned, well-thought-out, evil tragedy.” Chief Brown noted snipers were perched in “elevated positions” early on, and questioned: “How would you know to post up there?”
Other individuals are publicly weighing in with their analysis of the reported details of the case:
Sean Parnell on Twitter
Sean Parnell Tweet
Malcolm Nance on Twitter
Malcolm Nance Tweet
While you may be able to vet some individuals with information from their online profiles, bear in mind the old saying: “You can’t believe everything you read on the internet.” The information they choose to share is self-disclosed and unconfirmed. For example, you should never be automatically impressed with someone online simply by their number of Followers or Fans. People can buy Fans and Followers across social media platforms. While media teams do their best to vet individuals before broadcasting their expert opinion to the masses, human error is inevitable. It is a good idea to keep this in mind when seeking to understand the facts of a widely-publicized event, such as these shootings.
Aurora Shootings
As a follow up to our blog post, “Unraveling the Complexities of the Aurora Theater Shootings,” Cinemark prevailed in the civil lawsuit in Arapahoe County District Court, finding the company not liable for the 2012 shooting at the Century Aurora 16 theater. In accordance with Colorado law, the prevailing side is entitled to recover its legal expenses, including filing fees, witness fees, and other costs (excluding attorney’s fees, normally). As a result of the decision, Cinemark asked the plaintiffs – in this case, 27 individuals consisting of victims who survived the shooting, or those that lost someone in the shooting – to reimburse it for about $700,000 in costs, as reported in the Denver Post.
The plaintiffs object to the expenses, which consist of $500,000+ in costs for five hired expert witnesses and $75,000 in costs to stage a preparatory mock trial. Plaintiffs allege that Cinemark spent more than what was necessary and that the company is not dividing up costs fairly. Simultaneously with the Arapahoe County District Court case, Cinemark was defending a nearly identical case in federal court against different plaintiffs/victims. Cinemark also prevailed in that federal case, which will entitle it to recover legal expenses from the plaintiffs.
Did Cinemark spend over $1 million in legal expenses preparing for both these cases? Was there overlap in the prep work between the two cases, as one was argued in district court and the other in federal court? Although the company has until July 20 to file the bill of costs with the federal court, the Arapahoe plaintiffs claim the work would have been used in both cases, and allege they should not have to pay more than half of Cinemark’s legal expenses from the case.
We await the judge’s decision next week, but note that it can ultimately be appealed. The victims filed a promised notice with the Colorado Court of Appeals stating they plan to appeal certain evidence and testimony that they claim should have been excluded or allowed in the trial.