Some court cases may require the services of an expert to enable the jurors and judges to have a better understanding of the underlying principles of the case(s) in question. An expert witness is an individual who has certain specialised skills, knowledge, training and experience in a certain field that goes beyond the knowledge of the rest of the members of the public (Kuchler, 2010, p. 152). He/she is an unbiased person possessing technical knowledge and plays an important role in helping others understand the complexities of evaluating a given technicality or rather a process. An expert witness has several roles and his/her testimony must follow certain principles to gain the juror’s/judge’s acceptability.
Attorneys hire expert witnesses to fulfil certain roles. An expert witness can act as an attorney’s confidential consultant (Kuchler, 2010, p. 153). In such a case, the expert reviews the materials necessary for a trial. Additionally, he/she assesses the materials and explains their meaning to the attorney. This helps the attorney to have a concrete understanding of the core aspects of a given case (William, 2002, p. 27). If an expert witness acts as a confidential consultant, he/she may not appear in court. Expert witnesses can also assume the role of a general expert. This requires the expert witness to integrate numerous technical disciplines and assist the attorney in managing the process (Eric & Sibony, 2008, p. 950). The expert can assist the attorney in brainstorming, developing certain important strategies as well as identifying certain technical issues in a given case (Donald, 1996, p. 943). The third role of an expert witness is to provide his/her testimony in the courtroom-as a testifying expert witness. Generally, the purpose of an expert testimony is to clear up some fuzzy facts or even strengthen inferences that might be confusing the jury. According to Yoder, the expert testimony enhances the jury’s understanding of the facts of a case (1998, p. 18). It also helps to point out a case’s flaws and weaknesses that might not be clear to the jury as they may be to the counsel (Freckleton & Selby, 1999, p. 32). These roles of an expert witness occur in all types of cases.
Due to the increasing trend of cybercrimes, there is an increased need for expert witness in the field of information technology. Most jurors/judges do not have the required knowledge to deal with cases involving cybercrimes due to their complexity. In such cases, an expert in software development and installation, networking and other related technological aspects are essential in assisting in the prosecution of cybercriminals. However, according to Date, there is a shortage of expert witnesses when it comes to cases regarding cybercrimes (1999, p. 14). Many states have embarked on training individuals in this field to boost the number of expert witnesses in cybercrime cases. For instance, the US government has spent billions of dollars in finding, training as well as retaining the right people to act as expert witnesses as a means to boost cyber security. The FBI’s National Infrastructure Protection Centre offers training in basic computer investigations, Unix for investigation, networking as well as advanced intrusion detection (Smith, 2011, p. 16). The US, among other states, is also training more people in software development and installation, which is instrumental in increasing the number of expert witnesses.
There are several principles that govern expert testimony. The expert should provide the details of the facts as well as assumptions that he/she made in coming up with his/her opinion (Griffith & Tengnah, 2010, p. 544). The expert testimony or rather evidence should be the independent product of the expert witness-there should be no external influence on the evidence that the expert provides in the courtroom. Additionally, the expert witness should communicate on the reliability of his/her testimony (Bronnit & McSherry, 2001, p. 66). In cases where the expert witness failed to carry out detailed research on his/her opinion due to unavailability of sufficient data, the expert should bring this to the attention of the court, with the indication that his/her opinion is merely provisional (Imwenkelried, 2005, p. 199). The expert testimony should not be biased, recklessly devised, or even contain any form of dishonesty. According to Richard, Kirsten and Martin, sometimes an expert witness may change his/her opinion after the exchange of reports with the other participants in a given case (2007, p. 16). If that occurs, the expert should communicate the change to the other side immediately through acceptable legal representatives and if necessary, to the court.
In giving his/her testimony, the expert witness should always clarify to the jury when a question or an issue falls outside his/her area of expertise (Hamilton, 2003, p. 72). In addition, expert witnesses should base their testimony on generally accepted technological and scientific principles relevant to the given field. There must be some evidence to prove the validity as well as the reliability of the techniques that an expert uses in his/her testimony (Redding, Floyd, & Hawk, 2001, p. 2001). According to Frankel (2000), expert witnesses should base their testimony on sufficient facts and data (p. 17). This strengthens the reliability of the testimony.
In conclusion, expert witnesses have several roles. They can act as attorney’s confidential consultants, general experts or as testifying experts. Expert witnesses seek to help other members of the public to understand certain principles and facts that are beyond their knowledge in dealing with criminal cases. Following the above discussion, expert witnesses need to put into consideration the principles that govern expert testimony in courtrooms.
References
Bronnit, S., & McSherry, B. (2001). Principles of Criminal Rule. Sydney: LBC Information Service. 23-35.
Date, S. (1999). FBI Trains its Security Team in Advanced IT Skills. Government Computer News, 18(37), 14-18.
Donald, B. (1996). On Filling the Role of Expert Witness. Consulting to Management, 9(2), 37-41.
Eric, B., & Sibony, A. (2008). Expert Evidence before the EC Courts. Common Market Law Review, 45(4), 941-985.
Frankel, M. (2000). The Evolving Role of Scientific Experts in the Courts. The Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law, 1, 16-20.
Freckleton, I., & Selby, H. (1999). Expert Witness in Criminal Law. Sydney: LBC Information Service. 30-45.
Griffith, R., & Tengnah, C. (2010). Principles of Good Evidence. British Journal of Community Nursing, 15(11), 542-546.
Hamilton, R, (2003). Marketing Your Professional Expertise to Attorneys. Chemical Engineering Progress, 5, 71-74.
Imwenkelried, E.S. (2005). Expert Testimony by Ethicists: What Should be the Norm?. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 33(2), 198-211.
Kuchler, D. D. (2010). An in-depth Look at Direct Examination of an Expert Witness. FDCC Quarterly, 60(20, 151-170.
Redding, R.E., Floyd, M.Y., & Hawk, G.L. (2001). What Judges and Lawyers Think About the Testimony of Mental Health Experts: A Survey of the Courts and Bar. Behavioural Sciences and Law, 19(4), 583-594.
Richard, W.A., Kirsten, D.A., & Martin, A.A. (2007). A Tripartite Solution to Eyewitness Era. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1 (5), 12-20.
Smith, J. (2011). Cyber Security Experts Wanted Here. National Journal, 12(1), 15-21.
William, B. (2002). An Expert Witness Can Make or Break a Case. Life and Health, 106(44), 26-28.
Yoder, S. D. (1998). The Nature of Ethical Expertise. The Hasting Centre Report, 28, 11-19.