Expert Witness Testimony And Admissibility
1. Understanding Expert Witness Testimony
Expert witnesses are individuals with specialized knowledge, training, skill, or experience in a particular field, called upon to assist the court in understanding evidence beyond the ordinary knowledge of judges or juries.
Key Functions
Provide Opinion Evidence: Experts can give opinions, not just facts, within their field of expertise.
Interpret Complex Data: Translate technical or scientific information into understandable terms for the court.
Assist Fact-Finders: Help judges or juries make informed decisions.
Admissibility Criteria
Courts usually consider the following before admitting expert testimony:
Relevance: The evidence must assist in resolving an issue in the case.
Qualification: The expert must demonstrate relevant knowledge, experience, or credentials.
Reliability: Methods and principles must be scientifically valid or generally accepted.
Probative Value vs. Prejudicial Effect: Evidence must be more helpful than misleading or unfairly prejudicial.
Key Rules in Various Jurisdictions:
Daubert Standard (U.S.): Focuses on scientific validity, peer review, error rates, and acceptance in the field.
Frye Standard (U.S., older cases): Requires that the technique is “generally accepted” in the relevant field.
India (Evidence Act, 1872): Section 45 allows opinion of experts on science, art, or specialized skill.
UK (Civil Evidence Act 1972; Criminal Procedure Rules): Expert evidence must be relevant and reliable.
2. Case Law Examples
Here are six key cases demonstrating principles of expert witness testimony and admissibility:
Case 1: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993, U.S.)
Facts: Plaintiffs alleged birth defects caused by a drug; expert testimony included scientific studies.
Issue: Whether expert scientific testimony based on novel techniques was admissible.
Decision: Supreme Court established the Daubert standard; expert testimony must be based on scientifically valid reasoning, tested, peer-reviewed, and generally accepted.
Significance: Landmark case for assessing scientific reliability and set a precedent for U.S. courts worldwide.
Case 2: Frye v. United States (1923, U.S.)
Facts: Expert testimony about a systolic blood pressure deception test (early lie detector) was proposed.
Issue: Is new scientific technique admissible?
Decision: Court held that evidence must be generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.
Significance: Introduced the “general acceptance” test, later modified by Daubert. Key for scientific expert evidence admissibility.
Case 3: R v. Mohan (1994, Canada)
Facts: Proposed medical expert testimony in a criminal trial.
Issue: When should expert evidence be admitted in criminal proceedings?
Decision: Supreme Court of Canada established four criteria for admissibility: relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and properly qualified expert.
Significance: Mohan test is widely cited internationally as a framework for admitting expert testimony.
Case 4: R v. Turner (1975, UK)
Facts: Question of fingerprint evidence admissibility in a theft case.
Issue: Whether the expert’s opinion based on fingerprints was reliable and relevant.
Decision: Court admitted fingerprint expert testimony, emphasizing that courts can rely on specialized experience when properly qualified.
Significance: Shows that experience-based expertise (not just scientific) can be admissible if relevant.
Case 5: State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Pradeep (India, 2002)
Facts: Expert medical testimony on cause of death in a murder trial.
Issue: Whether expert opinion could be used to establish cause of death.
Decision: Court accepted expert opinion as probative evidence, but stressed that ultimate conclusion of guilt rests with the judge.
Significance: Demonstrates Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act; expert opinions assist but do not replace judicial fact-finding.
Case 6: Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999, U.S.)
Facts: Expert testimony on tire failure in an accident case.
Issue: Should trial judges determine admissibility of all expert testimony, not just scientific?
Decision: Supreme Court extended Daubert standards to technical and specialized knowledge, not only science.
Significance: Clarifies that judges act as gatekeepers for all expert evidence to ensure reliability.
3. Key Takeaways
Judges are gatekeepers: They decide if expert testimony is admissible based on qualifications, relevance, and reliability.
Expert testimony assists, not decides: Experts provide opinions, but the judge or jury makes the final determination.
Standards of admissibility vary: Different jurisdictions emphasize scientific validity, general acceptance, or necessity.
Expert types: Medical, forensic, technical, financial, or experience-based expertise can all qualify.
Disclosure and ethics: Experts must testify objectively, not advocate for the party that retained them.
RELATED Blog
comments