The third source contemplated by the rule consists of presentation of data to the expert outside of court and other than by his own perception. Problems of determining what testimony the expert relied upon, when the latter technique is employed and the testimony is in conflict, may be resolved by resort to Rule 705. The technique may be the familiar hypothetical question or having the expert attend the trial and hear the testimony establishing the facts. The second source, presentation at the trial, also reflects existing practice. Whether he must first relate his observations is treated in Rule 705. Rheingold, The Basis of Medical Testimony, 15 Vand.L.Rev. The first is the firsthand observation of the witness, with opinions based thereon traditionally allowed. Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rulesįacts or data upon which expert opinions are based may, under the rule, be derived from three possible sources. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |