How is the quality of an expert witness judged? When bringing in an expert to testify something, obviously that expert doesn't have to bring in their resume and go through 3 rounds of interviewing with every member of the jury, as if they were trying to get hired at Apple. So what is stopping someone from bringing Dr. SnakeOil from Scam College in as their expert witness to testify something? As a simple example, even chiropractors are controversial in the medical field. If Charlie the Chiropractor comes in and says the defendant's back was in too much pain for him to jump out the window, is that word allowed in the courtroom as expert testimony? Or, as a more extreme example, is Wally the Witchdoctor allowed to come in and say the same thing? Ideally, one would have Sam the Stanford M.D. make the statement, of course. Basically, what is the standard of quality for an expert witness, or are juror's/judges supposed to make up their own minds based on short descriptions (e.g. they graduated from Harvard, they've treated 1000 patients, etc.)? But that also seemingly leads to problems. Not everyone will know that UCSF is the best medical school in the world (I'm showing my personal bias here xP), or that Donda academy isn't accredited, etc..
canada Qualifed expert Experts do have to essentially &quot;bring in their resume.&quot; For example, in Ontario, an expert's report must outline &quot;the expert’s qualifications and employment and educational experiences in his or her area of expertise.&quot; Rules of Civil Procedure, 53.03. An expert must &quot;have acquired special or peculiar knowledge through study or experience in respect of the matters on which he or she undertakes to testify.&quot; R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9. The risks The Supreme Court has recognized (Mohan): There is a danger that expert evidence will be misused and will distort the fact-finding process. Dressed up in scientific language which the jury does not easily understand and submitted through a witness of impressive antecedents, this evidence is apt to be accepted by the jury as being virtually infallible and as having more weight than it deserves. ... The cases address a number of other related concerns: the potential prejudice created by the expert’s reliance on unproven material not subject to cross-examination; the risk of admitting “junk science”; and the risk that a “contest of experts” distracts rather than assists the trier of fact. Another well-known danger associated with the admissibility of expert evidence is that it may lead to an inordinate expenditure of time and money. [Citations removed] The gatekeeping role of the judge The judge is tasked with a &quot;gatekeeping role&quot;: &quot;the judge balances the potential risks and benefits of admitting the evidence in order to decide whether the potential benefits justify the risks.&quot; The judge is to compare the potential value of the expert evidence with its potential risks. In doing so, the judge looks at (R. v. J.-L.J., 2000 SCC 51): the subject matter whether this is a scientific question whether the expert evidence is on the ultimate issue before the court whether the evidence would be precluded by another exclusionary rule whether the expert is properly qualified the relevance of the evidence the necessity of the evidence If the question is a scientific question, Canada has adopted an approach similar to that used in the United States that asks (R. v. J.‑L.J., 2000 SCC 51; R. v. Trochym, 2007 SCC 6): whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication the known or potential rate of error or the existence of standards whether the theory or technique used has been generally accepted Evidence admitted is not evidence accepted If the judge is of the view that the expert evidence is admissible, then it is up to the opposing side to introduce competing evidence regarding the question at issue (even using their own experts) and can cross-examine the expert on their qualifications or the scientific bases for their opinions.
In the United States, different jurisdictions have different rules about what topics may be addressed in cross examination. In the federal courts, Fed. R. Evid. 611 generally discourages cross examination on matters not addressed in the direct examination, although it also permits questions on &quot;matters affecting the witness’s credibility.&quot; So if a witness is asked on direct examination only about whether A stopped at the intersection before B crashed into him, the cross examination probably shouldn't go into questions about how severe the injuries were, what the weather conditions were, etc. But the court should allow cross-examination on whether the witness is the plaintiff's sister, or whether the witness was previously convicted of perjury. (Despite the rule, the court has a great deal of latitude as to how to handle these questions, practically speaking.) In the state courts, the rules may be different. In Ohio, for instance, Rule 611 is roughly identical, except that it generally allows questions on &quot;all relevant matters.&quot; So now the questions about the weather and injuries are fair game, along with the questions about the witness's credibility. In any event, the questions will remain subject to the other rules of evidence, so questions about sexual history might be excluded by the rape shield, and questions about irrelevant matters should be prohibited, as well.
One wouldn't be able to make a claim about a driving record without it being testimony. Testimony will be challenged during cross examination. The prosecutor won't be able to bring up prior bad acts (such as previous speeding tickets) but will most certainly be allowed to rebut any claim of no prior bad acts made by a defendant. When the defendant claims a spotless driving record the defendant is introducing character or a character trait into the trial. Once introduced by the defendant the prosecutor will be allowed to challenge the credibility of that statement and, therefore, the credibility of the witness. Imagine the following interaction: Defendant: I have a spotless driving record. Prosecutor: Are you saying you've never been issued a traffic ticket? Defendant: Um, Uh, well... When a defendant goes to court they are facing a specific charge. The prosecutor will present evidence that supports that charge and it is up to the defendant and his attorneys to sow reasonable doubt within the jury, or at least one juror. By presenting character, the defendant may appear to be saying either, "Hey, it was my first time let me off," or, "I've never done it before so I couldn't have done it this time." Either way, it probably won't create reasonable doubt in the juror's mind about the specific charge they're weighing and it has the potential to open a can of worms that would be unfavorable to the defendant.
I'm no expert, but I had assumed this clause was present in case of the following situation. Joe is arrested for a robbery of a London bank. Joe says nothing under questioning. At trial, Joe's defense is that at the time of the robbery, he was in Sheffield drinking beer with his brother. On the basis of common sense, a jury could think: "Surely if Joe were really innocent, he would have told the police of his alibi at the time he was questioned, and saved himself a lot of trouble. Since he didn't do that, maybe a more likely explanation is that he wasn't actually in Sheffield, but that sometime between arrest and trial, he came up with the idea of faking an alibi in Sheffield, and convinced people to testify falsely to that effect. Yes, that does seem more plausible. So we are not going to give much credence to Joe's supposed alibi." So it really would be the case that not mentioning the alibi during questioning would harm Joe's defense at trial. The warning, then, is intended to keep Joe from doing this inadvertently. If Joe's alibi is genuine, but out of a misguided desire to exercise his right to remain silent, he doesn't mention it during questioning, he may accidentally increase his chances of being wrongly convicted. Everybody has an interest in avoiding this.
First, while Law and Order should not be taken as an accurate depiction of a New York trial, it especially should not be taken as an accurate depiction of an Australian trial. Australian law, while it has some major similarities with US law (both ultimately derive from the law of England), is not US law. With procedural matters (such as "may jurors ask questions of witnesses"), it can potentially differ from court to court. In general, jurors may not simply ask a witness a question. The jury's job is not to investigate and figure out if the defendant was guilty or not; it's to evaluate the cases presented by each side. US (and Australian, as far as I know) courts use what's known as the adversarial model, where the prosecution and the defense both present the best cases they can and a neutral third party decides which case was stronger. In a US criminal trial, the state is expected to justify why someone should be in jail; the jury shouldn't be helping them justify it. This isn't how all jurisdictions around the world work, but it's how the US does. One concern with juror questions is that it has the risk that the juror will not be impartial. Jurors are not supposed to get into arguments with witnesses, or to go after them to try to prove a point. In your case, the juror might be introducing an entirely different line of reasoning from the one either side is presenting, and that's simply not their job. People have raised the concern that a juror thinking up questions might be deciding the case before they hear all the evidence, and might give too much weight to the answers to their own questions (or read a lot into it if a question is denied). There are also rules on what questions may be legally asked; lawyers know these and jurors generally don't, which is why jurors may almost never directly ask a question to a witness. Where they can ask questions, it's virtually always written questions, which the judge reviews, gives to both sides to see if anyone objects, and then reads to the witness in a neutral tone.
It doesn't really require anything beyond your say-so that it is what you say it is; that would be enough to satisfy the requirement for authentication. From there though, as with any evidence, it's going to be up to a jury to decide how much weight to give the evidence. So the more you can show them to prove that the record is real -- and to knock down any questions the opposing party will raise -- the more likely they are to believe it. So if you just bring a printout that looks like it could easily have been forged, the jury may be thinking about that. If you can bring in a data forensics expert to say the document couldn't have been faked, that's probably going to help. Addendum: As a practical matter, I wouldn't expect this to be much of an issue. Unless you're dealing with a savvy opposing party, the authenticity of e-mails seems to be generally assumed. Courts (1) generally assume that parties aren't perpetrating frauds; and (2) are generally run by judges with little to no technical savvy, who don't realize that one could forge an e-mail, let alone all the different ways it could be done. I've personally entered countless e-mail printouts without them being questioned, even though either party could have just gone down into the e-mail thread and changed what the other side had said earlier in the conversation. To avoid the issue, though, it might be that sending the e-mail to a Gmail account would elimimate the question.
united-states Witnesses are generally confined to giving testimony from their own personal memory; most of the time, they can't read a statement into the record or just tell the jury to go look at some other piece of evidence. But this creates problems when a witness knows an important fact but doesn't remember it when she takes the stand. Maybe she counted exactly how much money she stuffed in the robber's bag as she was doing it, and she wrote it down as soon as he fled, but a year later, she can't remember that it was $93,736.45. But the prosecutor isn't allowed to just give the witness a stack of evidence and let her go hunting through the documents to answer each question. Instead,he goes through the &quot;Do you remember&quot; colloquy to lay the necessary foundation to refresh the witness's memory, as contemplated by Rule 612, which then also triggers certain rights for the opposing party with respect to the document used to refresh the witness's memory.
It seems generally uncontroversial that in examining a witness at trial, a lawyer may not ask questions implying that the witness has engaged in some wrongdoing, unless the lawyer has some basis for asking those questions. This is not true. A lawyer is allowed to guess and ask such a question, although if it assumes a fact not in evidence it could be objected to for lack of foundation. For example, the opposing counsel could object if the lawyer asked, "After you drank twelve beers at BigTown Sports Bar, isn't it true that you got into a car and drove away?", because there would be no evidence in the record at that point that he drank twelve beers at BigTown Sports Bar. For instance, in the absence of any evidence indicating that alcohol was involved, I would imagine that a plaintiff's lawyer in an accident case could not cross-examine a defendant with leading questions suggesting that he had been drunk at the time of the crash. Sure he could. He could ask, "Isn't it true that you were drunk at the time of the crash?" There is nothing objectionable about that question. If the answer was "no", however, and the lawyer had nothing else to back up that suggestion, the question might not help the case, but the question is proper. Sometimes a lawyer just has a hunch and goes with it, and sometimes the hunch is right. Is this rule codified in a rule of evidence or is it just rooted in the courts' ideas of decorum and propriety? I can see how it might implicate the Rules of Professional Conduct, but that wouldn't seem to provide a remedy to a party who was prejudiced by such behavior. I'm more interested here with civil cases than criminal, where a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights might be complicate the question. It isn't codified because such a rule does not exist. There are some special rules that apply to prosecutors, who are ethically required to bring criminal cases only when they believe that the cases are supported by probable cause. But, that rule applies at the case level and not at the question by question level. Lawyers are also prohibited, especially in criminal cases, from making statements asserting personal knowledge of the credibility of a defendant or witness. This is because this transforms the lawyer from an advocate to a credibility witness. But, the lawyer can ask a judge or jury to find that someone is not credible in closing argument based upon X, Y and Z evidence presented at trial.