- 11 -
that gave rise to his adjustment leading to the $150,000 figure,
nor can we. Finally, Austin multiplied the $150,000 figure by
three to arrive at a 1991 value of $450,000. During his oral
testimony, he explained his “highly conservative” “extrapolation”
of the value of the coin ledgers from 1983 to 1991 as follows:
I’m not sure if I’ve made that point clear, the
calculated figure that I worked up to the $75,000. At
that point, having arrived at the 150, well then you
know that I took the three times figure, which I took
to tell the truth without very much investigating, but
it was from what I understood in the -- the talk that
had been going on, the talk for a settlement in the
meeting and so on, it was a figure already on the
table. Well, I didn’t want to start that up again.
He further describes the appreciation factor (3x), which he
asserts he "borrowed" from respondent's expert, as “not really a
very solid one” and states that, although it is a figure he
“could argue with” (he does not tell us whether he would argue up
or down), he accepted it because of time pressure and “not to
argue over every comma”.
Opinion testimony of experts is useful to the trier of fact
precisely because it provides the informed and unbiased opinion
of a qualified expert arriving at a reasoned conclusion. It
would be absurd to rely on a purported expert’s opinion that was,
with respect to important conclusions, arrived at “without very
much investigation”, considered by the expert himself as “not
really * * * solid”, and merely a concession so as “not to argue
over every comma”. Therefore, we find major portions of Austin’s
testimony as to the value of the coin ledgers unpersuasive. He
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011