Expert Witness Testimony

Question 1

Define expert evidence.

Answer 1

The opinion of a person with expertise in an area that is relevant to a specific issue in a case and is necessary to assist the judge or jury.

Question 2

How is an expert witness deemed an expert?

Answer 2

Through education, training and/or experience

Question 3

List the Mohan criteria.

4

Answer 3

Relevance to the case
Necessity to assist the trier of fact
Absence of any exclusionary rule
Properly qualified expert

Question 4

What is considered when determining if expert witness testimony is relevent?

2

Answer 4

Does it progress the trial?
Is it required?

Question 5

Why is there no expert witness for photography?

Answer 5

Straightforward, would be too timely and costly

Question 6

What is considered when determining if expert opinion is necessary?

Answer 6

Does the expert have specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact?
Can an acerage person come to the same conclusions without an expert?

Question 7

Give examples of exclusionary rules.

Answer 7

Hearsay evidence
Evidence that violates the Charter

Question 8

How do we determine if an expert is qualified?

Answer 8

Voir dire

Question 9

What is a voire dire?

Answer 9

A hearing to determine
Whether evidence is admissible
Competence of expert witness

Question 10

Who is present during a voir dire?

Answer 10

Defence, Crown, judge, expert

Question 11

What is a CV?

Answer 11

A written document that highlights your skills, training, knowledge and experience to give expert evidence.

Question 12

List the type of information you would include on a CV.

9

Answer 12

Work history
Education
Special courses
Special awards or citations for work in the field of expertise
Speeches made or articles delivered touching on the area of expertise
Work experience as an instructor or lecturer in a relevant field
Membership in professional societies
Prior court experience and qualifications
Prior work and training under recognized specialized experts

Question 13

What is considered when determining if the witness is a properly qualified expert as per the Mohan criteria?

3

Answer 13

Does the proposed expert have greater knowledge or skill than the trier of fact?
Is the person an expert ina generally recognized body of knowledge?
Is the opinion substantially based on that body of knowledge?

Question 14

What is the two step process outlined in R. v. Abbey (2009)?

Answer 14

1. Mohan criteria
2. Judge’s role as gatekeeper

Question 15

What is done in the second step of the Abbey criteria?

Answer 15

Judge conducts a risk and benefit assessment of the use of the expert testimony.

Question 16

What are the 4 criteria established in White Burgess v. A&H Co.?

Answer 16

Independent
Objective
Unbiased
Impartial

Question 17

True or false: Your report is like testimony and thus is under oath.

Answer 17

True

Question 18

What are the differing opinions as to whether you should include your police force’s logo on your CV?

Answer 18

Do it - the court knows who you work for
Don’t - the look biased

Question 19

What case is the US equivalent of Mohan?

Answer 19

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

Question 20

What is the criteria established under Daubert?

4

Answer 20

Is the science generally accepted?
Testability
Error rates
Peer review/publications

Question 21

What facts must the prosecutor know regarding your intended expert testimony?

Answer 21

Facts upon which it is based
How you arrived at your opinion
Strength of your opinion
Additional factors that may/will affect your opinion.

Question 22

Explain how expert witness testimony, though based on facts, is subjective.

Answer 22

Although you may have similar or identical training, your experiences vary
One print examiner may find 15 minutiae and another may find 20
Both examiners follow the same scientific methodology of ACE-V to reach their conclusions.

Question 23

What was the novice fingerprint examiner error rate found to be in Tangen et al?

Answer 23

55.18%

Question 24

What was the expert fingerprint examiner error rate found to be in Tangen et al?

Answer 24

7.88%

Question 25

What did the study by Tangen et al prove?

Answer 25

That fingerprint examiners are exceedingly accurate compared to novices, but are not infallible

Question 26

What was the false positive rate determined to be in the Black Box Study?

Answer 26

0.1%

Question 27

What was the false negative rate determined to be in the Black Box Study?

Answer 27

7.5%

Question 28

What methodology was used in the Black Box Study?

Answer 28

Only ACE

Question 29

What did the Miami Dade study determine to be the false identification error rate?

Answer 29

3.0%

Question 30

Why was the Miami-Dade conclusion different than the conclusions made in the Black Box Study?

Answer 30

The M-D study included admin errors in addition to the false identifications. After recaclulating, the false ID error rate was ~0.1%

Question 31

List the three issues identified with fingerprint studies.

Answer 31

Black Box error rates used incomplete methodology (no V) Misrepresented error rate in Miami-Dade Hawthorne effect

Question 32

What is the Hawthorne Effect?

Answer 32

Participants behaqve differently when they know they are being watched

Question 33

What was the 2011 Fingerprint Inquiry a result of?

Answer 33

Misidentification of D/Cst Shirley McKie

Question 34

What were the 4 important takeaways from the 2011 Fingerprint Inquiry?

Answer 34

1. Fingerprint evidence should be recognized as OPINION evidence 2. examiners should discontinue reporting conclusions on identification or exclusion with a claim of 100% certainty 3. Characteristics first found at the comparison stage should be included in any note of the examination and should have less weight on them 4. Features on which examiners rely should be demonstrable to the lay person with normal eyesight

Question 35

What were the 3 key takeways of the NAS Report?

Answer 35

1. Research on accuracy, reliability and validity in forensic science 2. Research on human observer bias and sources of human error 3. Integrated team approach to develop standards (working groups)