The judicial process’ integrity depends largely on objectivity, truthfulness, and the avoidance of extreme bias in expert testimony. Under the United States jurisprudence, an expert witness always plays a significant role in providing the jury and the judge with a ready-made scientific deduction or inference which the jury and judge are incapable of formulating due to the technical nature of the existing facts (Bowers, 2014). Admissibility standards of the testimony of an expert witness often differ significantly depending on federal and state rules of evidence and procedure. The testimony given by an expert witness may, therefore, be admissible in certain courts within the state but not in federal courts and contrariwise. FRE 702 sanctions a judge to admit the testimony of an expert witness into evidence in instances where it helps the judge or the jury to establish a fact in a particular issue or understand the underlying evidence (Bradford, 2015). FRE 703 authorizes a qualified expert to give a testimony found on other people’s data provided that the experts in the particular field customarily acknowledge the information. FREE 704 sanctions an expert to opine on a final factual issue. In the paper, I will delineate aspects regarding the admissibility of an expert witness in court.
How Ethics Play a Significant Part in an Expert Witness’ Testimony
Ethics is significant in establishing the roles of an expert witness. Ethical standards do not only focus on the profession of the expert but also the tasks of the expert witness. The expert witness does not represent herself but rather the knowledge entailed in her field of expertise regarding the subject at hand. Her role is to offer specialized knowledge that will help the judge and the jury to understand technical facts associated with the evidence. The expert witness’ most important obligation is, therefore, to approach each question with objectivity and independence. An objective expert is usually tasked with the ethical responsibility of viewing data and facts dispassionately, irrespective of the client’s consequences (Downs, 2012). He further claims that an independent expert witness is not usually impacted by the objectives of the party that retained him and is not often reticent to arriving at a decision that fails to back up the legal status of the client. Secondly, ethics plays a major role in validating the authenticity of the expert witness' testimony in establishing the truth about the issue. The dominant epistemological perspective in approaching this particular role of ethics incorporates the interplay of three major factors; these factors include justification, honesty, and belief.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Truth relates to the reality of a particular proposition, and it is independent of belief. Belief refers to an individual's subjective position regarding the truth of a specific proposition. Justification, on the other hand, incorporates the quality of the presented reasons for a particular belief. For a particular concept to be categorized as knowledge, it must be believed to be true. An individual's belief that a concept is true must be subsequently justified. Expert witnesses are, therefore, morally obliged to justify their beliefs that a particular theory is true through incorporating various procedures and evidence in their testimony. In the absence of truth, the argued concept is often recognized as an error. In the absence of a specific belief, the argued concept is usually identified as ignorance, and in the absence of an effective justification, the presented information is often categorized as mere opinion (Downs, 2012). Lastly, to ensure the ethical nature testimonies given by expert witnesses in courts, sanctions are usually imposed on experts who deviate from ethical norms. Sanctions may be done by attorneys, parties to the litigation, professional institutions, juries, and judges.
How the Daubert Rule and the Frye Standard could be allowed by the Court in determining an Expert Witness for a Case.
The Daubert Rule is a rule of evidence associated with the admissibility of the testimonies given by expert witnesses during various legal proceedings in the federal court in the U.S (Cwik & North, 2013). A particular party may propose a Daubert motion to debar the submission of unqualified evidence before the jury. To attack the testimony of an expert witness as inadmissible, the counsel for the respective party may present motions to the court, and this includes limine motions. The limine motions may be submitted before trial (Cwick & North, 2013). However, they may present the motion during trial. The Daubert Rule may be allowed in court when determining the effectiveness of an expert witness in a case in instances where the expert's knowledge or skills are considered reliable and relevant by the judge in the establishment of facts regarding the issue, and illustrative factors such as scientific methodology typify the testimony. The Daubert Rule may also be allowed in instances where the testimony is based on sufficient information and facts, and the useful application of scientific methods and principles to the facts associated with the case.
The Frye Rule is a general acceptance test used to establish the admissibility of particular scientific evidence. The rule is based on the notion that an expert witness’ opinion established on a scientific procedure, may be considered admissible only if the procedure is generally acknowledged as reliable and relevant within the scientific community (Chlistunoff, 2016). The Frye Rule may be allowed by the court when evaluating the expert witness’s effectiveness in a case in instances where the scientific evidence submitted to the court has been identified by the court as “generally accepted” by a significant number of the scientific fraternity. The court’s interpretation applies to the techniques, principles, and procedures that may be presented in a court case proceeding. During the practical application of the Frye Rule, individuals considered as proponents of an extensively disputed scientific concept have to provide a relevant number of experts to validate the science entailed in the issue at hand. During the scrutiny of the Frye Rule, novel techniques often forced the courts to evaluate the judicial precedents, books, and papers on the topic at hand to make conclusions regarding the reliability of the concept and its general acceptance.
In conclusion, Courts, often rely on the testimony of the expert witness in many criminal and civil cases to describe the scientific matters that may not be adequately understood by judges and jurors. Ethics plays a significant role in establishing the roles of an expert witness, validating the authenticity of the expert witness’ testimony in establishing the truth about the issue, and in imposing sanctions on expert witnesses who deviate from the ethical norms. The Frye Rule is based on the notion that an expert witness’ opinion established on a scientific procedure, may be considered admissible only if the procedure is generally acknowledged as reliable and relevant within the scientific fraternity. The Daubert Rule may be allowed in instances where the testimony is based on sufficient information and facts, and scientific methods, the expert’s skills are considered reliable and relevant, and the scientific methods and principles have been effectively applied to the facts associated with the case.
References
Bowers, C. M. (2014). Forensic testimony: Science, law and expert evidence . Kidlington, Oxford: Academic Press, 2014.
Bradford, C. J. (2015). The First Twenty Years of Rule of Evidence 702 and the Current State of Expert Testimony in Indiana. Indiana Law Review , 48(4), 1115-1132.
Chlistunoff, M. M. (2016). Expert Testimony and the Quest for Reliability: The Case for a Methodology Questionnaire. Texas Law Review , 94(5), 1055-1078.
Cwik, C. H., North, J. L., & American Bar Association. (2013). Scientific Evidence Review: Admissibility and use of expert evidence in the courtroom . Chicago, Ill.: Section of Science and Technology Law, American Bar Association.
Downs, J. C. U., & Swienton, A. R. (2012). Ethics in forensic science . Oxford: Academic.
