Evidence Law Class Session 6: Expert Witnesses and Opinion Evidence

Today we will cover:

Expert Witnesses Defined:

Expert witnesses are individuals with specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a particular field relevant to the legal case at hand. Their role in legal proceedings is to provide expert opinions and insights based on their expertise. They assist the trier of fact, such as a judge or jury, in understanding complex issues beyond the scope of common knowledge.

Qualifying as an Expert:

The process of establishing a witness as an expert involves several steps. Courts use different standards to admit expert testimony, with two prominent ones being the Daubert standard and the Frye standard:

Daubert Standard: The Daubert standard, derived from the U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), emphasizes the reliability and relevance of expert testimony. To qualify as an expert under this standard, the court considers factors such as whether the expert's methods and techniques have been tested, whether they have been peer-reviewed, and the known error rate of their methods. The judge serves as the gatekeeper, ensuring that the expert's testimony meets these criteria.

Frye Standard: The Frye standard, originating from the case Frye v. United States (1923), focuses on whether the expert's methods and principles have gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. Under this standard, the expert's testimony is admissible if it is based on methods and principles that are generally accepted by experts in the field.

Expert Opinion Admissibility:

Admissibility of expert opinions depends on several factors, including relevance and the potential for prejudice. To be admissible, expert opinions must be pertinent to the issues in the case and helpful to the trier of fact. Courts carefully weigh the probative value of expert testimony against any potential prejudicial impact on the jury.

Lay Opinion vs Expert Opinion:

Distinguishing between lay opinions and expert opinions is crucial in the legal context:

Lay Opinion: Lay witnesses provide testimony based on their personal experiences or common knowledge. They can testify about things they have personally observed or experienced. For example, a witness can testify that they saw a car run a red light.

Expert Opinion: Expert witnesses, on the other hand, offer opinions based on their specialized knowledge and expertise in a particular field. They can provide insights, interpretations, and conclusions that go beyond what a layperson could provide. For instance, a forensic expert can offer an opinion on the cause of death based on scientific analysis.

Now for a Case Study:

Medical Malpractice Case:

In a medical malpractice case, an expert witness, often a renowned surgeon or medical specialist, may be called to testify about the standard of care. To be admitted as an expert, this witness must demonstrate their qualifications, which typically include board certification in their medical specialty, extensive experience in similar cases, and a strong reputation within their field.

Forensic Expert Testimony:

In a murder trial, a forensic expert may be called to provide an opinion on the cause of death. The admissibility of the expert's opinion depends on factors such as their qualifications, the reliability of their analysis methods, and whether their conclusions are based on generally accepted principles in the field of forensic science.

Now for some Questions:

Expert Witnesses v Lay Witnesses:

The primary difference between expert witnesses and lay witnesses lies in their basis for testimony. Expert witnesses provide opinions based on their specialized knowledge, while lay witnesses offer testimony based on personal experiences or common knowledge.

--- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support