The expert witness is one of those legal constructs - this is where you hear the phrase 'at law' - so we can say "At Law" an expert witness is there to assist the Court, they are called an 'independent witness', at law, as noted above, they are not there to assist the person who hired them or care about the outcome of the case - they are there to help the judge or jury make a finding. This case does a good job of going over the rules in a survey of other jurisdictions.ĪREN'T EXPERT WITNESSES BIAS AND PARTIAL TO THE PARTY WHO HIRED THEM? but you can not say 'in your opinion they were intoxicated.'Ī good case to read about expert witnesses reference above, is the recent (April 2014) case of MacWilliams v Connors, 2014 PESC 12. You can say he/she appeared intoxicated, eyes bloodshot, slurred speech, difficulty walking, etc. after giving their opinion the expert is toĪssist the Court further as requested in relation to the case the expert opinedįor example, a citizen who was not 'qualified' as an expert witness could not give evidence that a defendant was intoxicated.The experts area of capability and expertise, to limit the parameters of the opinion to.to provide an opinion that is fair-minded, independentĪnd not slated so as to be in favour of one side of a case.The task of EXPERT WITNESSES is the same across Canada and all common law jurisdictions, basically an EXPERT WITNESS is involved in the case. N.E.2d 954 (6th Dist.2000), quoting In re John B., 6th Dist. "The qualification of anĮxpert depends upon the expert's possession of special knowledge that he or she has acquired either by study of recognized authorities on the subject orīy practical experience that he or she can impart to the trier of fact." Superior to that possessed by the trier of fact. The subject, but must demonstrate some knowledge on the particular subject "To qualify as an expert the witness need not be the best witness on Good quote from USA case - law generally the same in Canada, here cited ("quoted") with approval (as in the court thinks this is 'the law' and is merely restating it) in MacWilliams v Connors (at paras 13 & 14) (emphasis added) Deficiencies in the expertise go to weight, not admissibility. 224: The only requirement for the admission of expert opinion is that the expert witness possesses special knowledge and experience going beyond that of the trier of fact". (as she then was) for the majority, set out a broad inclusive rule at para. As to admissibility of expert evidence generally, in 1993 in R v Marquard, 1993 CanLII 37 (SCC), 4 S.C.R. Best place to start is the definition as set out by a Court (here a Court from PEI): An expert witness is someone who through education, training or experience has advanced knowledge about a subject relevant to a matter or issue in a trial, to such an extent that the court qualifies that person to give opinion evidence within his/her area of expertise.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |