-158-
experts. The Court also filed on December 5, 2000, a supplement
by respondent to his proposed questions.
After the conclusion of the testimony by all other
witnesses, including the parties’ experts, Duffie and Sziklay
were each furnished with the complete trial record up to that
point, and they each submitted a written report. Thereafter,
petitioner submitted a joint rebuttal report on behalf of
Smithson and Sullivan, and later, after that report was excluded
from evidence, separate rebuttal reports on behalf of each
expert. Respondent submitted to the Court the separate rebuttal
reports of O’Brien and Parsons. The Court-appointed experts then
submitted their rebuttal reports. The trial was resumed, at
which time the parties cross-examined the Court-appointed experts
and presented the rebuttal testimony of their own experts.
Respondent challenged the admissibility of Sullivan’s
rebuttal report. Respondent asserted that the report was
inadmissible because it was tainted in its preparation by the
significant participation of petitioner’s counsel. By order
dated January 15, 2003, we excluded Sullivan’s rebuttal report
from evidence. We noted that Sullivan has never explained to our
satisfaction that the words, analysis, and opinions in that
report were his own work. We ruled that petitioner, as the
proponent of the expert testimony, failed to establish the
report’s admissibility by a “preponderance of proof.” See
Page: Previous 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011