Expert Witness and Consultations

Expert Witness & Litigation Consultant

Experience is proven to be an excellent resource for future litigation. There isn’t very many litigation topics that Mr. Jensen hasn’t thrown his hat into the discussion. He is contacted by attorneys on nearly a daily basis.

Mr. Jensen is an expert in the rules of civil procedure, rules of criminal procedures, rules of discovery, rules of evidence, rules of appellate procedures, DUI, civil rights, immunity, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, warrants, privacy, elements of offenses, torts, divorce and custody, jury instructions, pleadings and trial procedures, statutory construction, and Constitutional law, among others topics.

IN CIVIL CASES: You do not want your case to be a learning process. Mr. Jensen offers free initial consultations. He is willing to review your case for merit and procedural intregrity. If you want your day in trial, you must have correct pleadings and you must be able to demonstrate that there are disputed facts existing or an issue in controversy.

IN CRIMINAL CASES:, can you really afford to be guessing? The court does not entertain motions based on speculation. You must demonstrate to the judge that genuine facts exist before you can request a hearing before the judge. The hearings are not designed to be a tool for discovery purposes. Mr. Jensen can give you those facts and since he has litigation experience, he knows what facts the judge would be looking for.

In other words, you have nothing to lose by contacting Mr. Jensen for a free consultation.

The Scientific Method of Crime Reconstruction

Crime reconstruction typically starts with inductive reasoning, then proceeds to deductive reasoning, then involves a breaking down or analysis of facts, and then involves a building up of facts or synthesis. The number and kind of facts, together with any ambiguity or doubt associated with them, determine the level of evidentiary value. The process is almost exactly the same as the scientific method:

Step 1 -- State the problem by looking at what type of crime was committed, the legal elements of the crime, and the characteristics of the jurisdiction where the crime was committed

Step 2 -- Form a hypothesis by looking at the physical evidence and interviewing the victim or witnesses to determine motive and possible suspects

Step 3 -- Collect data by doing records checks and police checks, re-interviewing the victim, witnesses, and suspects, while trying to obtain additional witnesses and exemplar or comparison samples from suspects

Step 4 -- Test hypotheses by evaluating how truthful and reliable the stories are of each party to the crime, and weigh their stories against the physical evidence and any known physical laws that could possibly reinterpret the physical evidence

Step 5 -- Follow up on the most promising hypotheses (theories) with any and all procedures (e.g., surveillance, stings) that might prove or disprove a particular suspect is the offender

Step 6 -- Draw conclusions that are supported by court-admissible evidence leading to the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of the offender.

The conclusions of a crime reconstruction should take one of four (4) forms about the sequence of events: (1) it can be shown to have occurred in a given manner; (2) it can be shown to have likely occurred in a given manner; (3) it can be shown to have unlikely occurred in a given manner; or (4) it cannot be shown to have occurred in a given manner.  The following table adapted from Osterburg & Ward (2000) relates these levels of certainty to legally admissible levels of proof:


LEVELS OF CERTAINTY AND LEVELS OF PROOF
PROOF Intuition Probable Cause Preponderance of Evidence Clear and Convincing Beyond Reasonable Doubt Scientific Certainty
EVIDENCE hunch, guess, or gut feeling facts a reasonable person would accept Corroborated facts, eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, or evidence interpreted by an expert Precise facts with known accuracy
QUANTITY articulable suspicion about possible facts prima facie, presumptive but rebuttable facts Over 50% of facts are in support Slightly less facts than beyond reasonable doubt Sufficient facts to preclude every reasonable alternative hypothesis Overwhelming facts
CERTAINTY apparent possible Basis for hypothesis formulation Basis for theory construction Seldom achieved
LAW suppressed basis for binding over to next stage Civil law standard of proof International law standard of proof Criminal law standard of proof Seldom used
INVESTIGATION useful during early stages basis for arrest or search warrant basis for confession and informant law basis for conviction Seldom used

Contact Mr. Jensen for a free consultation.

Jason Jensen is a proud member of the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Click to verify BBB accreditation and to see a BBB report. Jason Jensen is a proud member of the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association.