Opinion evidence

Last updated

Opinion evidence refers to direct evidence outlining what the expert witness, believes, or infers in regard to facts, as distinguished from personal knowledge of the facts themselves. [1] In common law jurisdictions the general rule is that a witness is supposed to testify as to what was observed and not to give an opinion on what was observed. However, there are two exceptions to this rule: expert evidence and non-expert opinion given by laymen which people in their daily lives reach without conscious ratiocination.

Contents

General rule

In general, witnesses should testify only as to the facts observed and should not give opinion. [2]

The main rationale for such a rule is that the admission of opinion evidence would not assist, or might even mislead, the court and in particular the jury. This is because opinion evidence is usually irrelevant. Moreover, admission of such evidence would usurp the functions of the jury, which alone should be the tribunal of fact and draw its own inferences. [3]

For instance, the court may in order to prove handwriting in any document take help of an expert who will compare the handwriting in document with the handwriting of persons by whom such document in purported to be written.

Another example can be a DNA test. Court me take help of DNA expert in order to ascertain the parentage of any child or person.

Expert evidence

An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder. [4] Expert witnesses may also deliver expert evidence about facts from the domain of their expertise. [5] The facts upon which an expert opinion is based must be proved by admissible evidence. [6] The duty of experts is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so that the judge or jury can form their own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved. [7]

Non-expert opinion

Non-expert opinion refers to the opinion given in restricted circumstances by laymen or persons who do not possess any expertise. These circumstances mainly concern matters of everyday life where a person may be expected to give opinions and which opinions may be safely acted upon by others.

Such circumstances cannot be definitively laid out in a closed list of cases. However, cases in which non-expert opinion has been admitted include:

Related Research Articles

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M'Naghten rules</span> Guideline governing legal pleas of insanity

The M'Naghten rule is any variant of the 1840s jury instruction in a criminal case when there is a defence of insanity:

that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

Testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter.

Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained from it is tainted as well.

In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.

The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.

<i>R v Marquard</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Marquard, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223, is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the admissibility of expert testimony.

In eyewitness identification, in criminal law, evidence is received from a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court".

An ultimate issue in criminal law is a legal issue at stake in the prosecution of a crime for which an expert witness is providing testimony.

James Joseph Duane is an American law professor at the Regent University School of Law, former criminal defense attorney, and Fifth Amendment expert. Duane has received considerable online attention for his lecture "Don't Talk to the Police", in which he advises citizens to avoid incriminating themselves by speaking to law enforcement officers.

The role of expert witnesses in English law is to give explanations of difficult or technical topics in civil and criminal trials, to assist the fact finding process. The extent to which authorities have been allowed to testify, and on what topics, has been debated, and to this end a variety of criteria have evolved throughout English case law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grand juries in the United States</span> Groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings

Grand juries in the United States are groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings, chiefly investigating potential criminal conduct and determining whether criminal charges should be brought. The grand jury originated under the law of England and spread through colonization to other jurisdictions as part of the common law. Today, however, the United States is one of only two jurisdictions, along with Liberia, that continues to use the grand jury to screen criminal indictments.

<i>R v Baker</i>

R v Baker [1989] 1 NZLR 738 was a decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand concerning the admissibility of hearsay evidence in a criminal trial. The judgment of President Sir Robin Cooke's created a common law exception to the rule against hearsay evidence in situations where the evidence is reliable and the witness unavailable. This principle was incorporated into the codification of the hearsay rule in the Evidence Act 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evidence Act 2006</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Evidence Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that codifies the laws of evidence. When enacted, the Act drew together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme, replacing most of the previous evidence law on the admissibility and use of evidence in court proceedings.

<i>Jones v Dunkel</i>

Jones v Dunkel is a decision of the High Court of Australia, concerning inferences that may be drawn when a party fails to give evidence.

References

  1. ↑ Fleissner, James P. (1996). "Mastering Trial Objections: The Spin Control Method". American Journal of Trial Advocacy. 20: 591.
  2. ↑ Tapper, Colin (2004). Cross & Tapper on Evidence (10th edn). UK: Lexis Nexis. p. 556. ISBN   978-0-406-95004-8.
  3. ↑ Tapper, Colin (2004). Cross & Tapper on Evidence (10th edn). UK: Lexis Nexis. p. 558. ISBN   978-0-406-95004-8.
  4. ↑ Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (As amended April 17, 2000, effective December 1, 2000)
  5. ↑ Gross, Samuel R (1991). "Expert Evidence". Wisconsin Law Review. 1991: 1118.
  6. ↑ R v Turner [1975] QB 834
  7. ↑ Davie v Edinburgh Magistrates
  8. ↑ R v Cox [1898] 1 QB 179
  9. ↑ "Expert evidence". In Brief. Archived from the original on November 2, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  10. ↑ R v Cheung Shing-Wai [1993] 1 HKCLR 311
  11. ↑ R v Davies [1962] 3 All ER 97
  12. ↑ R v Davies [1962] 1 WLR 1111
  13. ↑ R v Beckett (1913) 8 Cr App R 204
  14. ↑ R v Ireland (No. 2) [1971] SASR 6
  15. ↑ R v Decha-Iamsakun [1993] 1 NZLR 141
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.