Expert Testimony

Question 1

What is the expert witness analysis

Answer 1

1) Is this witness an expert?
Rule: specialized knowledge, skill, experience, education, or training helps trier of fact determine an issue? (FRE 702(a))
2) Will it assist the jury or is it common knowledge (FRE 702)
3)Is there a proper basis for the opinion (FRE703), there are 3 possibilities:
4) Is the information reliable (Daubert)
5) Expert reliably applied to facts (FRE 702(d))

Question 2

what are the 3 areas experts can’t testify to?

Answer 2

1) Common Knowledge (Faberge)
2) Ultimate Issue (Hygh v. Jacobs)
3) Opinions of credibility (Batangan)

Question 3

What are the three paths for an expert to have proper basis under FRE 703?

Answer 3

1) Expert basis his opinion on admissible evidence (IN)
2) Expert basis his opinion on inadmissible evidence but it is the type of information an expert would reasonably rely on to make opinion (opinion in; facts in if passes reverse 403(b) analysis)
3) Expert basis his opinion on inadmissible evidence that one wouldn’t reasonably rely on (opinion out)

Question 4

What are the Daubert Factors

Answer 4

1) Tested?
2) peer review/pub
3) rate of error
4) standards of control (Methodology)
5) general acceptance (Frye)

Question 5

Issue 1 data points (whether the person is an expert) (702(a))

Answer 5

1) US v. Johnson - experience smoking pot qualified expert.
2) US v. Plunk - police officer experienced with drug lingo
3) Jinro - PI in korea was not expert with Korean Business practices b/c he wasn’t a cultural expert such as a sociologist or anthropologist.

Question 6

Issue 2 data points (will it help the trier of fact)

Answer 6

US V. Libby - no need for expert testimony on memory lapses since it is common knowledge

Chesebrough v. Fabrege - no need for expert linguist to tell the fact finder the difference between “Macho” and “Match”

Hygh v. Jacobs - expert touched ultimate issue when he told jury that deadly force was not justified under the circumstances

State v. Montgomery - expert touched ultimate issue when

State v. Batangan - expert testified to credibility which was not allowed when he suggested that sexual abuse victims testimony was “believable.”

Question 7

Issue 3 data points (is there a proper factual basis (FRE 703))

Answer 7

[check on this]

Question 8

Issue 4 Reliability data points (Daubert)

Answer 8

Kuhmo Tire - Daubert applies to all expert testimony.

Ayers v. Robinson - Expert testimony on Hedonic value of life had not mathematical or scientific basis, inadmissible