Expert witness

expert testimonyexpert evidenceexpert opinionexpert witnessesexpertsexpertmedical expertScientific evidence (law) scientific evidenceDaubert Standard and the Frye Standard
An expert witness, in England, Wales and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert.wikipedia
534 Related Articles

Expert

expertiseexpertsspecialist
An expert witness, in England, Wales and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. Typically, experts are relied on for opinions on severity of injury, degree of sanity, cause of failure in a machine or other device, loss of earnings and associated benefits, care costs, and the like.
An expert can be believed, by virtue of credentials, training, education, profession, publication or experience, to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion on that topic.

John Smeaton

Smeaton
In this particular case, the court was hearing litigation regarding the silting of Wells Harbor in Norfolk and allowed leading civil engineer, John Smeaton, to provide scientific rationale behind the proposed legislation.
Smeaton is considered to be the first expert witness to appear in an English court.

Forensic firearm examination

ballistic fingerprintingballisticballistic evidence
Fingerprint examination, blood analysis, DNA fingerprinting, and forensic firearm examination are common kinds of expert evidence heard in serious criminal cases.
Like all forensic specialties, forensic firearm examiners are subject to being called to testify in court as expert witnesses.

Forensic psychology

forensic psychologistforensicforensic psychologists
Although experts can testify in any case in which their expertise is relevant, criminal cases are more likely to use forensic scientists or forensic psychologists, whereas civil cases, such as personal injury, may use forensic engineers, forensic accountants, employment consultants or care experts.
It involves understanding fundamental legal principles, particularly with regard to expert witness testimony and the specific content area of concern (e.g., competence to stand trial, child custody and visitation, or workplace discrimination), as well as relevant jurisdictional considerations (e.g., in the United States, the definition of insanity in criminal trials differs from state to state) in order to be able to interact appropriately with judges, attorneys, and other legal professionals.

Damages

compensationcompensatory damagesmonetary damages
In civil cases, the work of accident analysis, forensic engineers, and forensic accountants is usually important, the latter to assess damages and costs in long and complex cases.
In this case, they may be called upon to give opinion evidence as an expert witness.

Employment consultant

employment consultants
Although experts can testify in any case in which their expertise is relevant, criminal cases are more likely to use forensic scientists or forensic psychologists, whereas civil cases, such as personal injury, may use forensic engineers, forensic accountants, employment consultants or care experts.
An employment consultant is an expert witness who advises courts and tribunals on employment related issues such as earnings, labour market analysis, residual earning capacity, and retraining.

Costs in English law

costslegal costslegal expense
In civil cases, the work of accident analysis, forensic engineers, and forensic accountants is usually important, the latter to assess damages and costs in long and complex cases.

Sanity

sanesound mindlegally sane
Typically, experts are relied on for opinions on severity of injury, degree of sanity, cause of failure in a machine or other device, loss of earnings and associated benefits, care costs, and the like.
It is not a medical term, although the opinions of medical experts are often important in making a legal decision as to whether someone is sane or insane.

Forensic science

forensicforensicsforensic scientist
Although experts can testify in any case in which their expertise is relevant, criminal cases are more likely to use forensic scientists or forensic psychologists, whereas civil cases, such as personal injury, may use forensic engineers, forensic accountants, employment consultants or care experts.
In addition to their laboratory role, forensic scientists testify as expert witnesses in both criminal and civil cases and can work for either the prosecution or the defense.

Testimony

testifytestifiedtestimonies
Experts in the U.S. typically are paid on an hourly basis for their services in investigating the facts, preparing a report, and if necessary, testifying during pre-trial discovery, or at trial.
Unless a witness is testifying as an expert witness, testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is generally limited to those opinions or inferences that are rationally based on the perceptions of the witness and are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony.

Daubert standard

DaubertDaubert'' standardDaubert Test
The Daubert standard arose out of the Supreme Court of the United States case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc..
In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow PharmaceuticalsSupreme CourtDaubert
The Daubert standard arose out of the Supreme Court of the United States case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc..
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts.

Ambush defence

An ambush defence is one in which defence evidence - notably from expert witnesses - has not been adduced in advance to the prosecuting authorities, leading to their inability to rebut it.

Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh

In Scots Law, Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh (1953) provides authority that where a witness has particular knowledge or skills in an area being examined by the court, and has been called to court in order to elaborate on that area for the benefit of the court, that witness may give evidence of his/her opinion on that area.
encapsulates the Scots law position regarding the role of expert witnesses in providing their opinion to the court in criminal and civil proceedings.

Voir dire

jury selectioninterrogatedjury was selected
The opposing attorney is permitted to conduct a voir dire of the witness in order to challenge that witness’ qualifications.
It also refers to the process by which expert witnesses are questioned about their backgrounds and qualifications before being allowed to present their opinion testimony in court.

Jones v Kaney

Jones v Kaney [[Case citation|[2011] UKSC 13]] is a 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on whether expert witnesses retained by a party in litigation can be sued for professional negligence, or whether they have the benefit of immunity from suit.

Death of an Expert Witness

Dalgliesh I: Death of an Expert Witnessnovel
The actual murder of Dr. Lorrimer, an experienced expert witness, is only discovered in the second section of the book.

Expert report

In England and Wales, under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), an expert witness is required to be independent and address his or her expert report to the court.
In law, expert reports are generated by expert witnesses offering their opinions on points of controversy in a legal case, and are typically sponsored by one side or the other in a litigation in order to support that party's claims.

Traffic collision reconstruction

accident reconstructionVehicular accident reconstructioncrash reconstructionist
Collision reconstruction is sometimes used as the basis of expert witness testimony at trials.

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael'', 526 U.S. 137 (1999)Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case that applied the Daubert standard to expert testimony from non-scientists.

Ultimate issue (law)

Ultimate issueissueslegal question
An ultimate issue in criminal law is a legal issue at stake in the prosecution of a crime for which an expert witness is providing testimony.

Gibson's law

The term specifically refers to the conflict between testimony of expert witnesses called by opposing parties in a trial under an adversarial system of justice.

Forensic accountant

financial analysts
When acting as an expert witness in court proceedings in Federal Court in the United States a forensic accountant is required to give testimony which is based upon sufficient facts or data and is the product of reliable principles and methods, and they are required to have applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

R v Mohan

R. v. Mohan
is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the use of expert witnesses in trial testimony.

Federal Rules of Evidence

Federal Rule of EvidenceRules of EvidenceAn Act to Establish Rules of Evidence for Certain Courts and Proceedings
The Federal Rules of Evidence use the Daubert Test.