7/1/2023 0 Comments Expert testimony meaning![]() ![]() In the first class, the facts are stated by the experts, and the conclusion is drawn by the jury. ![]() There are two general classes of matters as to which expert testimony is admissible: (1) matters as to which the conclusions to be drawn by the jury depend on the existence of facts that are not common knowledge and that are specifically within the knowledge of persons whose experience or study enables them to testify with authority on the subjects in question and (2) matters as to which the conclusions to be drawn from the facts stated, as well as knowledge of the facts themselves, depend on professional or scientific knowledge not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence. Conversely, the fact that a witness has been previously qualified to give expert testimony on the subject matter in question is typically irrelevant to his or her qualifications for giving such testimony in a subsequent case. However, primary reliance is not placed on the fact that it may be the expert's first time on the witness stand. Most courts will more closely scrutinize the qualifications of witnesses seeking to testify as experts if they have never been found qualified to give expert testimony on a prior occasion. The qualifications of an expert witness must be carefully scrutinized by courts to guard against charlatans who may give erroneous testimony without a sound foundation. Many courts also require the witness to exhibit sufficient knowledge of the subject matter before his or her opinion to go to the jury. Several courts have stated that the true criterion in determining the qualification of expert witnesses is not whether they employ their knowledge and skill professionally or commercially, but whether the jury can receive appreciable help from them on the particular subject in issue. Instead, an expert's qualifications are normally evaluated on a witness-by-witness basis, according to the facts and issues of each case. Supreme Court further observed that the reliability of a scientific technique may turn on whether the technique can be and has been tested whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication and whether there is a high rate of error or standards controlling its operation.Ĭourts do not apply a rigid rule in determining whether a particular witness is qualified to testify as an expert. Thus, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. The law deems persons having no such experience or training to be incapable of forming accurate opinions or drawing correct conclusions. By definition, a lay witness is any witness who is not qualified to testify as an expert on a particular subject.Įxpert witnesses are persons who are qualified, either by actual experience or by careful study, to form definite opinions with respect to a division of science, a branch of art, or a department of trade. Lay witnesses are also normally allowed to give their opinion as to the height, weight, quantity, and dimensions of things, even if their testimony is not precise. Thus, lay witnesses who have had an opportunity to observe a particular vehicle in motion are normally permitted to testify that it was traveling at a great rate of speed or was going pretty fast. A lay witness may give his or her opinion when that opinion is (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue and (3) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of expert testimony discussed below. In certain instances, however, the law allows witnesses to provide opinion evidence, and such evidence is divided into two classes, lay opinion and expert opinion. Opinion testimony that is based on facts is usually considered incompetent and inadmissible, if the factfinders are as well qualified as the witness to draw conclusions from the facts. Testimony must normally state facts perceived by the witnesses' use of their own senses, as distinguished from their opinions, inferences, impressions, and conclusions drawn from the facts. ![]() Generally speaking, the law of evidence in both civil and criminal cases confines the testimony of witnesses to statements of concrete facts within their own observation, knowledge, and recollection. Testimony about a scientific, technical, or professional issue given by a person qualified to testify because of familiarity with the subject or special training in the field. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |