Group Portion: An Expert Witness
In the law of evidence, it is important to understand the meaning of each definition and meet the requirements given. There are many rules in the Federal Rules of Evidence, and each of them has its purpose and impact on citizens in criminal cases (Graves, 2013). For example, Rule 702 explains the testimony by expert witnesses. Before explaining the peculiarities of this type of testimony, it is necessary to define such a term as an expert witness. In general, an expert witness could be a person, who has special, usually technical, knowledge and uses it to build an opinion that could be developed using the information and facts provided in a case.
There is no need for this person to be a direct witness to a case. It is enough to have the training, education, and experience to introduce an opinion. However, nowadays, people believe that they could be experts in something from different points of view. Such an approach should be declined when it is necessary to define the qualifications of an expert witness. Not everyone could be identified as an expert witness. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence (2014), a witness has to be qualified as an expert “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” (p. 15). Such a person has to be ready to base their testimony on several sufficient facts and help the jury to understand a certain issue and use it properly in the court.
Several restrictions could be placed against an expert witness regarding the importance of the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules of Evidence (O’Malley, 2013). Each state puts its restrictions on expert witnesses separately regarding the field of the case. For example, in some spheres, the experience of a person, who is going to perform the functions of an expert witness, should be identified. Besides, an expert witness has to be cited in the discovery phase. If a person was missed or not mentioned because of different reasons, there is a restriction of using this person as a witness. Still, there is no clear identification of these restrictions in the law. Therefore, the attorneys or prosecutors can use different facts and knowledge to prove or disprove the presence or absence of the chosen expert witness relying on personal evaluations of a situation.
Some people are still confused about the differences or similarities that exist between lay and expert witnesses. However, in the Federal Rules of Evidence, there is a clear differentiation of these two terms. If an expert witness has to be qualified as an expert relying on knowledge or experience, a lay witness may be any person, who is not identified as an expert but can confirm the facts (Bronstein, 2012). The main difference between these two types of witnesses is the possibility to develop personal opinions and conclusions in regards to a case. In comparison to the opinions of an expert witness that has to be disclosed before a trial and introduced in a formal report, the words and information offered by a lay witness may stay undisclosed until the trial. At the same time, the main weakness of such a witness is a frequent possibility to consider such opinion as inadmissible. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify if an opinion is based on lay witness’ perception of the events or not, and if this opinion could help to clarify the understanding of the case.
Individual Portion: The Daubert Rule vs. the Frye Standard
To introduce clear and effective facts and evidence in courts, testimonies by expert witnesses have to be tested and determined. Nowadays, several standards could be taken into consideration. In fact, before the case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals in 1993, the Frye standard was the only test used to determine the possible admissibility of evidence. However, after the situation when a trial judge had to decide whether the offered testimony was reliable enough, and the attorney was not confident in the quality of the expert, the Daubert hearing was offered (Gussak, 2013). Some states accepted the idea of the Daubert standard and relied on it all the time when a new opinion and conclusion are required. Still, there are also supporters of the Frye standard due to its long history and ability to use science as the product of reliable principles and methods (Schorsch, 2013). Therefore, the discussions on the worth of the Frye Standard and the Daubert Rule continue happening, and the task is to comprehend which standard could allow the identification of more expert witnesses if there are used exclusively.
According to the Frye Standard, it is necessary to accept any scientific evidence as a crucial segment of the case. The opinion of an expert witness could be accepted if the offered scientific evidence could be accepted by the same court representatives. It is expected that some experts support the same evidence and use it in court. As soon as the validity of evidence cannot be put under question, it has to be accepted.
The Daubert Standard is another rule that identifies the relation of evidence to an opinion of an expert witness. In comparison to the Frye Standard, the Daubert Standard has to respond to several crucial requirements. First, the trial judge is the last instance that has to identify the appropriateness of evidence introduced by an expert witness. Second, the trial judge has to identify the relevance and reliability of the facts introduced regarding the case. Knowledge of an expert witness has to be proved as scientific. Finally, several illustrative factors should be introduced to prove the possibility of the information given.
Nowadays, in federal court, the Daubert Standard is defined as the law in the same way the Frye Standard is defined under such jurisdictions as California, New York, and Washington. It is impossible to make all states accept one particular standard. Therefore, the representatives of the law try to avoid misunderstandings and follow the same standard in all their cases regarding the place where the court occurs.
Taking into consideration the nature of possible restrictions on expert witnesses and the responsibilities of the trial judge, it is possible to say that the Frye Standard is characterized by minimal restrictions on expert witnesses and allows for their identification even if it is defined as exclusive. Under the Daubert Standard, scientific methodology is defined as the process that could help to formulate the hypotheses based on non-dispositive and non-exclusive observations (Gussak, 2013).
In general, it is wrong to consider that one of the standards is better than another because each of them has its own strong and weak points that could be used to help promote justice and protect the citizens of the United States of America.
References
Bronstein, D.A. (2012). Law for the expert witness (4th ed.). New York, NY: CRC Press.
Federal Rules of Evidence. (2014). Web.
Graves, M.W. (2013). Digital archaeology: The art and science of digital forensics. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gussak, D. (2013). Art on Trial: Art therapy in capital murder cases. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
O’Malley, N.D. (2013). Rules of evidence in international arbitration: An annotated guide. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Schortsch, P. (2013). Expert witness restrictions lawsuit. Advise & Consult. Web.