If gasoline was used to start the fire, the fact that the defendant was seen near the fire and smelled like gasoline makes it more likely that he started the fire, so the proffered evidence is material and relevant. At issue here is whether the defendant started the restaurant fire. Evidence is competent if it does not violate a specific exclusionary rule. Evidence is material if it relates to an issue in the case, and it is probative if it tends to prove the fact for which it is offered. To be admissible under the Federal Rules, evidence must be probative of a material issue in the case and must be competent (i.e., not otherwise excludable). ![]() The witness should be allowed to testify as to what she perceived. An expert's opinion may be based upon the evidence introduced at the trial and communicated to the expert by counsel, usually in the form of a hypothetical question. However, the expert may be required to disclose such information on cross-examination. An expert may give opinion testimony on direct examination without disclosing the basis of the opinion, unless the court orders otherwise. If the expert has examined the person about whom he is testifying, he may relate those facts observed by him and on which he bases his opinion. An expert's opinion may be based on personal observation. However, if the facts are of a type inadmissible in evidence, the proponent of the expert opinion must not disclose those facts to the jury unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. If the opinion of the expert is a mere guess or speculation, it is inadmissible.Īnswer is B Under Federal Rule 703, the expert may base an opinion upon facts not known personally but supplied to him outside the courtroom, and such facts need not be in evidence or even of a type admissible in evidence, as long as the facts are of a kind reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field. The expert must possess reasonable certainty or probability regarding his opinion. To testify as an expert, a person must have special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates. This test of assistance to the trier of fact subdivides into two requirements: (i) The opinion must be relevant, and (ii) The methodology underlying the opinion must be reliable. The rule provides: "An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue." Under Federal Rule 702, expert opinion testimony is admissible if the subject matter is one where scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge would help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. Federal Rule 704(a) and the modern trend repudiate the traditional prohibition on opinions embracing the ultimate issue in the case. However, accident reconstruction is a field that requires specialized knowledge thus, a lay witness would not be permitted to testify about the significance of skid marks at an accident scene.Īnswer is B The opinion of an expert witness may embrace the ultimate issue in the case. It is true that a lay witness may testify that a vehicle was going "fast," and may even estimate the speed of a moving object if a proper foundation is laid. Thus, a lay witness cannot testify that her employer directly authorized her to enter into a contract where that is at issue in the case. When agency or authorization is in issue, a lay witness generally may not state a conclusion as to her authorization. Although testimony as to the general appearance or condition of a person is admissible, testimony that a person is suffering from a specific disease or a specific injury is inadmissible because it usually requires the knowledge of an expert. Answer is A Testimony about whether a person was intoxicated is likely admissible because it is based on the perception of the witness rather than on specialized knowledge.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |