A New Jersey appellate court recently ruled in James v. Ruiz that testifying experts cannot bolster their opinions by piggybacking or “bootstrapping” the written conclusions of other experts who are not testifying in court.

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of the accused to confront witnesses against him, thereby excluding hearsay from a case. Hearsay is testimony from a witness who relays information to a jury from a second-hand witness. Hearsay is considered unreliable because the witness who supposedly said the statement is not present in court to be subject to cross-examination.

To illustrate how this works, imagine a case where counsel is trying to prove that Peter was in New York at the time of a robbery. Counsel asks a witness on the stand whether Patrick told him that Peter was in New York in order to place Peter in New York at that time. This is an out-of-court statement made to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that Peter was in New York), and therefore, cannot be cross-examined by opposing counsel because Patrick is not in court. As a result of scenarios like this, rules of court have been crafted to prevent juries from considering hearsay statements in both criminal and civil cases.

Under Federal Rule 703, “an expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.” New Jersey has adopted Rule 703 and takes a strict view on what constitutes personal observance. For example, while certain medical records can be admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, if those records contain medical opinions regarding a complex medical condition, then under the recent decision in James, they cannot be referenced by a testifying witnesses as a consistent (or non-consistent) opinion to his opinion, unless the testifying expert relied on those opinions for his or her own “personal” findings. The witnesses relied upon must be testifying as well. Therefore, simply rubber-stamping one’s own opinion based on a non-testifying expert’s opinion, is bootstrapping and violative of Rule 703.

Together with the business records exception and Rule 703, New Jersey also has Rule 808, which has no federal analog. Under N.J.R.E. 808:

Expert opinion which is included in an admissible hearsay statement shall be excluded if the declarant has not been produced as a witness unless the trial judge finds that the circumstances involved in rendering the opinion, including the motive, duty, and interest of the declarant, whether litigation was contemplated by the declarant, the complexity of the subject matter, and the likelihood of accuracy of the opinion, tend to establish its trustworthiness.

Thus, there are times when a non-testifying expert’s opinion can be permitted, but the trial judge must evaluate the expert’s motives, duty, and interest in giving the opinion; whether they had litigation in mind at the time of the opinion; the complexity of the subject matter; and whether the opinion is accurate. If the opinion regards something that is complex and contested in the lawsuit, the opinion will not be permitted under Rule 808. If it is an uncontested opinion or something insignificant, then it will more than likely be admitted.

There is a line drawn between facts and data, which any expert can discuss, provided that they are relied upon by other experts in the field, and expert opinions. And again, non-testifying expert opinions cannot be admitted unless the testifying expert relied upon those opinions in his analysis of the case and will be testifying. According to the court, “[i]f the requirements of Rule 808 are met, and a testifying expert has reasonably relied upon the non-testifying expert’s opinions, then the testifying expert may be permitted to refer to that absent expert’s opinions in the course of explaining his or her own opinions in court.”  The court continued: “However, this pathway should not be used as a ‘subterfuge to allow an expert to bolster the expert testimony by reference to other opinions of experts not testifying.’”

The bottom line is testifying experts cannot be used as a conduit to admit non-testifying expert testimony. This applies especially to bootstrapping “net opinions” in this manner. In addition to the constitutional issues raised here, doing so is simply unfair. If a plaintiff has an expert who is testifying against the defendant’s expert with an opposite opinion, then permitting the bootstrapping of a non-expert’s opinion is like having two experts against one in front of the jury for the price of one.

A Raleigh police officer sued Starbucks in 2012 for burns he sustained when the lid of his coffee cup popped off. According to the officer, when the lid came off, the cup collapsed and burned him. The stress activated his Crohn’s disease, and as a result, he lost part of his intestine. He claims damages of $50,000. His wife also sued for loss of companionship.

This is a classic case of the Eggshell Skull Rule: “take the plaintiff as they are.” Here, the officer’s Crohn’s disease is an unforeseeable circumstance of the burns, yet Starbucks may still be liable, according to the rule. The case is an analog to the Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants case discussed in class.

Posted by Sukayna Khalifeh.

According to the New York Times (Peter J. Henning), there are no real findings of liability for violations from the cases arising from the 2008 financial crisis. Henning wrote about two cases in particular that were recently resolved but the top managers in the companies were not held liable. One of them involved fraud charges against Freddie Mac’s former chief executive, Richard F. Syron. This case “concluded only with an acknowledgment that no party is the prevailing party” (Henning). This was concluded because there was “no accepted definition of a subprime mortgage,” so there was no way to prove Syron had intentionally given false accounts of loans. The second case was against Ernst & Young, an auditor of Lehman Brothers. They were charged for accounting fraud but reached a settlement with the government for $10 million instead even though Lehman Brothers set off the financial crisis in September 2008 by going bankrupt. It was the largest bankruptcy in American History according to the New York Times (Henning).

Both of these cases were huge contributors to the financial crisis yet the perpetrators still were not held liable for illegal or dishonest behavior. “Management was aware of accounting maneuvers used to make its finances look stronger than they were,” (Henning) yet the Security Exchange Commission still stopped the investigation on Lehman Brothers in 2012. They were not criminally charged nor was any civil action taken.

Henning also wrote about the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), which is designed to pursue “cases against banks for violations of the mail and wire fraud statutes.” This has been a successful and helpful tool that prosecutors used against JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup. Although this is a powerful tool, it has not been used to hold individuals for violations. Henning implied that the Justice Department should focus more on individuals in the corporation and charge them for misconduct instead of the corporation as a whole. The guilty individuals inside the company should be held liable for wrongdoing.

Sukayna is a double major in finance and management, information and technology (MIT) at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Lauren Mudrick.

In April 2015, the Entertainment and Sports Performing Network (ESPN) filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court against the telecommunications company, Verizon, for breaching a contract. Disney, who owns ESPN, claimed that Verizon made a unilateral decision, with little to no discussion with cable networks, when it released a new cable package called FiOS Custom TV.

The package took channels from basic cable and separated them into smaller specific categories. “ESPN claims that it would have most likely embraced this new innovative package if it were done in compliance with their contractual agreement.” Verizon claims that it is “within the company’s rights under the agreement to give customers these choices, and that this is what the customers want.” 21st Century Fox and NBC Universal joined ESPN in its disagreement with Verizon. These companies too claimed that the FiOS cable package violated their contracts.

A contract is a promise made between parties for which the law recognizes the performance of as a duty, or gives a remedy to the breach of. The said companies had in the past formed a contract with five basic elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, and legality. With these five elements, the contract is valid unless it is declared voidable or unenforceable. If breached, the courts may rule an equitable remedy for the plaintiff. If Verizon really did go against any element of this contract, ESPN will “be made whole again” by a remedy due from Verizon.

Lauren is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Kate Robinson.

Jordan Belfort, an infamous stockbroker, known for making millions in the 1990s, plead guilty to securities fraud and money laundering in 1999. In 2003, he was sentenced to four years in prison, but only served 22 months and owed a personal fine of $110 million. Today, Mr. Belfort’s story is known as being the basis for the 2013 film, “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

In 1989, Jordan Belfort was illegally running his own investment company, Stratton Oakmont. Mr. Belfort and his partner, Danny Porush, were able to make millions by defrauding their company’s investors by using a “pump and dump” scheme. Brokers would push stocks onto their innocent clients, which would help to inflate the stocks’ prices. The company would then sell off its own holdings in these stocks at an extreme profit.

During the time when Mr. Belfort was at an all-time high in his so-called career, he spent lavishly. His business was able to give him the funds to purchase a mansion, sports cars, and several other expensive toys. But with the help of his abundance of cash, Mr. Belfort developed a serious drug addiction, which often lead him to trouble. However, to this day he has developed an interest in writing and has released two memoirs. He currently lives in Los Angeles, California and operates his own company, which provides sales training and markets “Straight Line” training programs aimed at building wealth. Mr. Belfort claims to have straightened out his life since serving his time in prison, and has reportedly paid $14 million of the $110 million fine levied against him.

Kate is a sports, events and tourism marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

In October 2013, Shaneen Allen was arrested for carrying a registered gun across the New Jersey border. Allen, who is a Pennsylvania native, was going on a routine visit to New Jersey when she was pulled over. As she opened her glove compartment, the officer noticed the concealed weapon. Allen was questioned and arrested.

Allen’s punishment could have included up to three years in prison, but thankfully her attorney got her out of serious jail time. Allen was in hot water for almost two years. Recently, Governor Chris Christie issued a pardon to Allen and was praised by many gun rights groups. As an American, I feel that the Second Amendment is very important, not only to people as individuals, but mainly to show what this country was built upon.

Personally, I do not feel that Allen did anything wrong as she was a legal, registered carrier and had no bad intentions. Governor Christie did the right thing and helped defend a very important amendment that supports what our Founding Fathers would have wanted. Not many people would have been quick to pardon somebody in Allen’s situation, but luckily for her, Governor Christie had her back. People like Allen who are legal carriers are what keeps the country the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be. If more gun owners were registered like Allen, crime would be monitored easier and street violence would come to an ease.

Daniel is a business management and merchandising major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Kyle Gatyas.

The US vendor of Chinese flooring products, Lumber Liquidators, has been facing an array of lawsuits ranging from allegations of stock price affectations to defective products. More recently, the company not only failed to meet California’s CARB-2 safety standards, but plaintiffs have also claimed exceeding levels of formaldehyde in their products. On March 5, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by John and Tracie-Linn Tyrrell because of certain symptoms they were experiencing shortly after John Tyrrell’s son-in-law installed the laminate flooring. They claimed they began having shortness of breath, weakness, fatigue, and incessant coughing and sneezing (Gibb). The lawsuit stated, “despite repeated medical tests, his doctors have not been able to identify the cause of these symptoms.” (Gibb).

The report aired on CBS News on 60 Minutes; it was said that the reason for higher levels of formaldehyde in their products was used to keep the cost down (Gibb). “According to an interview done by 60 Minutes, the amount of formaldehyde in the products is a serious threat because the toxins can escape into the air, making homeowners extremely ill.” (Gibb). The class action lawsuit permits representing any consumer who purchased the Chinese flooring products in the last four years and has had any medical complications. Reimbursement for the material and installation will also be included as damages in the lawsuit.

Kyle is currently undeclared at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Taylor Gonzales.

Uber and Lyft have become new technological businesses that have gotten a lot of attention for offering taxi service straight from your phone. An app is required that allows an account to be made, linked to a credit card, where you are able to request a taxi to a certain location to bring you to another one. It is a business, however, that is not the typical taxi service. Any person who needs extra cash can be a driver when requests to the apps are made. However, the article states, “The state regulates for-hire passenger transportation through the Limousines Transportation Act 271 of 1990 and the Michigan Vehicle Code. All vehicles transporting passengers are defined as limousines under the law and must have a commercial license plate. Drivers are required to have a chauffeur’s license” (Oddy, 2015). Yet, in Michigan for-hire drivers are not required to have a chauffer’s license.

Though it is not illegal in the state of Michigan, as a business, they should realize that it does not reach the moral minimum. The law may not require such a license for their for-hire drivers, however, they should realize that this poses risks for their customers, because Uber’s and Lyft’s employees may not be qualified to fulfill the position safely and successfully. Both businesses should have created an ethical code of conduct that should be followed to ensure the upmost excellence of their business procedures and safety of their customers.

There is a contract between the customer and the provider, even with these types of business, and through that contract they should make an adjustment to ensure that each driver is properly trained and has a chauffeur license regardless of state law. In cases like this, it is not so much that they are breaking the law, but rather not running a morally and ethically stable business.

Taylor is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Kyle Gatyas.

On April 16, 2015, Counsel to the City of Trenton announced that “the Trenton Paid Sick Leave ordinance would only apply to businesses located in the city itself.” (Bond). They stated that they will not apply to businesses outside the borders of Trenton. This new paid leave ordinance came in effect on March 4, 2015. One thing this law does is it excludes construction unions and other employees and covers them by collective bargaining agreements from the paid sick leave requirements (Bond). Both part-time and full-time workers have the ability to be paid on their time off by the rate of 1 hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked. “Employers with 10 or more employees have to provide up to five paid days each year, whereas businesses with less employees have to provide up to three paid days each year.” (Bond). There is an exception, only for workers in childcare, food service, and home healthcare who are automatically entitled to five days.

For employees, there is a certain requirement in order to be eligible to qualify for paid sick days. You must have a maximum of 40 hours per year regardless of the size of your employer. “However, they are not able to use more than 40 hours in one year. Usually, they are not entitled to carry over anytime if they were paid for the hours they did not use.” (Bond). Also, you are not eligible to qualify for this requirement until you have been working for at least 90 days. As the employees begin their employment, or as soon as they are practicable, the employers provide them with a written notice explaining their rights. “This ordinance also provides language to prohibit retaliation against employees exercising their rights” (Bond). Failing to do so creates an additional liability to the employees since the ordinance creates an explicit right to sue if an employee believes their right have been violated. “They could also face monetary fines and other penalties.” (Bond).

Kyle is currently undeclared at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Sukayna Khalifeh.

Spoofing became illegal in 2010 when an amendment stating that “bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution” was added to the Commodity Exchange Act. Navinder Singh Sarao was criminally charged for this so-called spoofing, because he was allegedly driving down the price of stocks of Standard & Poor on purpose by making other traders sell their stocks, and then at the last minute, buy those stocks himself and cancel his hoaxed sell orders. He would make a profit after the price came back up and everything goes back to normal. According to the New York Times (Henning), the government also thinks that he was one of the causes that lead to the “flash crash” in May 2010, where the “Dow Jones industrial average dropped nearly 1,000 points in just a few minutes before quickly recovering.” This was proven not to be the case when the blame was actually pinned on Waddell & Reed Financial in 2010 and Sarao was still placing orders after that yet no sudden drops in the market occurred. This proves the government had made the wrong analysis.

Henning brings up a question of whether there is enough proof to call this process a fraud. If it is constituted as one, then Navinder Singh Sarao might have to be deported to Britain by the government. According to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, since 2009, Sarao had made about $40 million just by spoofing. Sarao counter argues that this is just the way he trades and that he had made this estimated profit within 20 trading days. Henning also describes that the “victims of Mr. Sarao’s orders are not ordinary investors” but they are instead “sophisticated investors who use algorithms that try to predict where the market is headed.” This brings up the fact that these sophisticated or high frequency investors are most likely the ones caught with spoofing charges. So, is this actually affecting or “harming ordinary long-term investors” (Henning)? This type of fraud is still violating the law regardless of who the victims are but according to the New York Times (Henning), these high frequency investors, with their access to data about large orders, could have easily adjusted their algorithms to find out what type of orders Sarao used. In that process, they would not have fell for the scheme.

Also, it is not obligatory that once you enter an order it must be filled. According to the New York Times (Henning), “more than 90 percent [of orders] are estimated to be cancelled.” This is not considered to be spoofing since the order might be filled. Henning views this as an illustration of the “fine line between accepted practices and illegal conduct.”

In order for Sarao to be extradited to Britain, the Justice Department must prove that he had true intention of not filling the order after entering them in. Also, the British court can block this extradition if it “would not be in the interests of justice” (Henning).

According to the New York Times (Henning), this case took the prosecutors six years to put together and will take them a little while longer to find out if Sarao actually committed fraud.

Sukayna is a double major in finance and management, information and technology (MIT), Class of 2017.