![]() ![]() Accordingly, if a physician is asked “what did the thermometer show as the patient’s temperature?” - that physician might not be considered an expert, but if the physician is asked “did the patient have a fever?” - the physician might be considered an expert. With respect to what makes a fact witness an expert, a fact witness only functions as an expert witness to the extent that one or both of the parties ask the witness to use the basic facts to draw conclusions and express opinionson relevant issues. Importantly, the rule does not define what makes a witness an expert such that the witness should be disclosed as an expert nor does it establish the difference between what makes an expert retained versus non-retained. Under that rule, expert designations are divided into two categories: (1) retained(2) non-retained. In Missouri state court, the disclosure of experts is governed by Mo.R.Civ.P. Once the retaining attorney decides to use the expert at trial and discloses him or her as a witness, the expert is subject to discovery. 1942) (excluding passenger's testimony about the speed of a car when the witness lacked personal knowledge and experience to judge speed at the time of the accident).The discovery of facts known and opinions held by an expert are, until the expert is designated for trial, the work product of the attorney retaining the expert. ![]() 1968) (precluding police officer, who was not an eyewitness to the accident, from testifying about the speed of the vehicle) Marsh v. 1992) ("The distinction between an expert and a non-expert witness is that a non-expert witness's testimony results from a process of reasoning familiar in everyday life, and an expert's testimony results from a process of reasoning which can be mastered only by specialists in the field.").įinally, to qualify under Rule 701 both the witness' understanding about the historical facts as well as the underlying foundation for making the inference or opinion must derive from the witness' personal experience and personal knowledge. The inquiry should center on the extent to which the testimony involves "inferences or thought processes not common to everyday life." See State v. In deciding whether the testimony fits under Rule 701 or 702, the trial judge should initially consider the complexity of the subject area, although some subject areas, such as handwriting or intoxication, are susceptible to both lay and expert testimony. The amendment is not a change from past practice but is designed to assist lawyers and judges in the line-drawing process distinguishing between lay and expert testimony. 2014) (allowing experienced farmers to testify about the cause of their crop failure). 1984) (allowing owner to testify about the value of a mobile home) Ptacek v. The Federal Advisory Committee Note describes this as testimony, not based on specialized knowledge, but based on "particularized knowledge" developed in day-to-day affairs, including testimony from an owner about the value of a business, house, or chattel. The second category involves testimony from a skilled layman. First, as a matter of necessity, witnesses may testify in the form of a generalized opinion about common matters they observed such as speed, size, distance, how they felt or how others appeared, intoxication, mental ability and numerous other subjects, if helpful. ![]() Non-expert inference or opinion testimony tends to fit into two separate categories. 1997) (law enforcement agents could testify that the defendant was acting suspiciously, without being qualified as experts however, the rules on experts were applicable where the agents testified on the basis of extensive experience that the defendant was using code words to refer to drug quantities and prices). Certainly it is possible for the same witness to provide both lay and expert testimony in a single case. The amendment does not distinguish between expert and lay witnesses, but rather between expert and lay testimony. As stated in the Federal Advisory Committee Note: The rule addresses the nature of the testimony, and is not an attempt to characterize a particular witness. 9.01, 9.02 by introducing testimony based on scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge under this rule. Parties should not avoid the foundational requirements of Rule 702 and the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Minn. Rule 701(c) comes from the 2000 amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |