EXPERT WITNESSES
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts
The facts or data on which an expert bases an opinion may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue
(a) Opinion or inference testimony otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
(b) In a criminal case, an expert witness shall not express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Rule 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion
The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefore without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the Court requires otherwise. The expert may, in any event, be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.
=======================================================================================
QUALIFYING EXPERT WITNESSES
Before an expert gives his/her expert opinion on a matter, the lawyer must first qualify the expert. There are two steps to qualify an expert. First, the lawyer must lay a foundation that shows the expert is qualified to testify on issues related to that expert's field of expertise. To lay a foundation, the lawyer asks the expert to describe factors such as schooling, professional training, work experience and books he/she has written that make a person an expert regarding a particular field. Second, once the witness has testified about his/her qualifications, the lawyer asks the judge to qualify the witness as an expert in a particular field.
Example: The wife of Harold Hart is suing Dr. Smith and General Hospital for malpractice. She claims they did not treat Mr. Hart for an obvious heart attack when he was brought to the hospital. Mrs. Hart's lawyer is examining his expert witness, Dr. Jones:
Q: Dr. Jones, what is your occupation?
A: I am a heart surgeon. I am Chief of Staff at the Howard University Medical Center.
Q: What medical school did you attend?
A: I graduated from Georgetown Medical School in 1978.
Q: Where did you do your internship?
A: I did a two year internship in cardiology at John Hopkins University from 1978-1980.
Q: Did you afterwards specialize in any particular field of medicine?
A: Yes, I specialized in heart attack treatment and heart surgery.
Q: Have you published any articles or books?
A: I wrote a chapter in a medical text on heart surgery procedures after heart attacks.
Q: Describe the chapter.
A: I set out the steps for identifying heart attacks and doing open heart surgery.
Q: What professional licenses do you have?
A: I am certified by the D.C. Board of Medical Examiners to practice medicine in D.C.
Attorney #1: Your Honor, I ask that Dr. Jones be qualified as an expert in the field of medicine.
Judge: Any objection?
Attorney #2: We object. No foundation has been laid regarding Dr. Jones's ability to render an opinion as to all fields of medicine.
Judge: Objection sustained. Dr. Jones's expertise seems to be limited to certain areas of medicine.
Attorney #1: Thank you, your Honor. We ask that Dr. Jones be qualified as an expert in the field
of heart surgery.
Judge: Any objections?
Attorney #2: No, your Honor.
Judge: Let the record reflect that Dr. Jones is qualified to testify as an expert in the field of heart surgery.
=============================================================================
Once qualified, an expert may give opinions relating only to the expert's area of expertise. That is, an expert cannot give an opinion in an area outside his/her expertise.
Example: (Dr. Jones has been qualified as an expert on heart surgery.)
Q: Dr. Jones, what is your opinion as to Mr. Hart's cause of death?
A: The patient suffered a massive heart attack caused by clogged arteries.
Q: Dr. Jones, in your opinion was the patient also suffering from a rare lung disease transmitted through contact with the North American mongoose as the defense contends?
Objection: The witness is testifying outside her area of expertise.
Judge: Sustained. Please confine your opinion to matters related to care and treatment of the heart.
Q: Dr. Jones, in your opinion, how should the patient's doctors have treated him?
A: They should have recognized that the patient was having a heart attack based on his chest pains, purple face, difficulty breathing, and numbness in his left arm. They should have given him the proper medication and treated him in the emergency room right away.
Q: Who was at fault in this matter?
A: Dr. Smith and General Hospital were definitely negligent.
Objection: The witness is testifying to the ultimate issue of the case, which is whether Dr. Smith and General Hospital are liable for malpractice. That is a question of fact for the judge (or jury, when the case is tried before a jury) to decide.
Judge: Sustained.
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts
The facts or data on which an expert bases an opinion may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue
(a) Opinion or inference testimony otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
(b) In a criminal case, an expert witness shall not express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Rule 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion
The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefore without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the Court requires otherwise. The expert may, in any event, be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.
=======================================================================================
QUALIFYING EXPERT WITNESSES
Before an expert gives his/her expert opinion on a matter, the lawyer must first qualify the expert. There are two steps to qualify an expert. First, the lawyer must lay a foundation that shows the expert is qualified to testify on issues related to that expert's field of expertise. To lay a foundation, the lawyer asks the expert to describe factors such as schooling, professional training, work experience and books he/she has written that make a person an expert regarding a particular field. Second, once the witness has testified about his/her qualifications, the lawyer asks the judge to qualify the witness as an expert in a particular field.
Example: The wife of Harold Hart is suing Dr. Smith and General Hospital for malpractice. She claims they did not treat Mr. Hart for an obvious heart attack when he was brought to the hospital. Mrs. Hart's lawyer is examining his expert witness, Dr. Jones:
Q: Dr. Jones, what is your occupation?
A: I am a heart surgeon. I am Chief of Staff at the Howard University Medical Center.
Q: What medical school did you attend?
A: I graduated from Georgetown Medical School in 1978.
Q: Where did you do your internship?
A: I did a two year internship in cardiology at John Hopkins University from 1978-1980.
Q: Did you afterwards specialize in any particular field of medicine?
A: Yes, I specialized in heart attack treatment and heart surgery.
Q: Have you published any articles or books?
A: I wrote a chapter in a medical text on heart surgery procedures after heart attacks.
Q: Describe the chapter.
A: I set out the steps for identifying heart attacks and doing open heart surgery.
Q: What professional licenses do you have?
A: I am certified by the D.C. Board of Medical Examiners to practice medicine in D.C.
Attorney #1: Your Honor, I ask that Dr. Jones be qualified as an expert in the field of medicine.
Judge: Any objection?
Attorney #2: We object. No foundation has been laid regarding Dr. Jones's ability to render an opinion as to all fields of medicine.
Judge: Objection sustained. Dr. Jones's expertise seems to be limited to certain areas of medicine.
Attorney #1: Thank you, your Honor. We ask that Dr. Jones be qualified as an expert in the field
of heart surgery.
Judge: Any objections?
Attorney #2: No, your Honor.
Judge: Let the record reflect that Dr. Jones is qualified to testify as an expert in the field of heart surgery.
=============================================================================
Once qualified, an expert may give opinions relating only to the expert's area of expertise. That is, an expert cannot give an opinion in an area outside his/her expertise.
Example: (Dr. Jones has been qualified as an expert on heart surgery.)
Q: Dr. Jones, what is your opinion as to Mr. Hart's cause of death?
A: The patient suffered a massive heart attack caused by clogged arteries.
Q: Dr. Jones, in your opinion was the patient also suffering from a rare lung disease transmitted through contact with the North American mongoose as the defense contends?
Objection: The witness is testifying outside her area of expertise.
Judge: Sustained. Please confine your opinion to matters related to care and treatment of the heart.
Q: Dr. Jones, in your opinion, how should the patient's doctors have treated him?
A: They should have recognized that the patient was having a heart attack based on his chest pains, purple face, difficulty breathing, and numbness in his left arm. They should have given him the proper medication and treated him in the emergency room right away.
Q: Who was at fault in this matter?
A: Dr. Smith and General Hospital were definitely negligent.
Objection: The witness is testifying to the ultimate issue of the case, which is whether Dr. Smith and General Hospital are liable for malpractice. That is a question of fact for the judge (or jury, when the case is tried before a jury) to decide.
Judge: Sustained.