Experts' Opinions: Interpreting The Law

Expert witnesses are professionals in specific fields with years of experience, and they are often called upon to provide their opinions in court cases. While they can offer insights and analysis based on their expertise, there are limitations to their role. One significant restriction is that expert witnesses are generally prohibited from opining on the meaning of the law or providing legal interpretations. This is because the interpretation of the law is the responsibility of the court, and allowing experts to offer legal opinions could influence the jury inappropriately. Therefore, while expert witnesses can provide valuable context and explanations within their fields of expertise, they typically cannot directly opine on the meaning of the law or legal terminology.

Expert witnesses cannot opine on legal terms of art

Expert witnesses are professionals in specific fields with years of experience, and a case may happen to revolve around something pertaining to their field. They are qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. While they don't have any hands-on information about the case, a legal team can hire them to explain the case and then get their expert opinions entered into the court's records. For example, a medical expert witness may be hired to explain the injuries the plaintiff suffered and the typical healing process, but they may not draw a conclusion about the case or the plaintiff's mindset.

Similarly, in Burkhart v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the court determined that the term "as effective" was not subject to expert opinion because it was a legal term of art with a meaning separate and distinct from the vernacular. The court found that the expert's testimony as to the applicable legal standard was plainly erroneous, demonstrating the danger of allowing experts to testify as to their understanding of the law.

In addition to excluding legal terms of art, courts have also excluded expert testimony on issues of law. For example, in United States v. Barile, the court prohibited expert testimony on the FDCA term "materially misleading." In Commonwealth v. Heang, the Supreme Judicial Court explained that when an expert witness offers a subjective opinion, they may not imply that the opinion has a statistical or mathematical basis.

Ultimately, the role of the expert witness is to provide specialized knowledge or technical assistance to the trier of fact to help them understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. The expert witness is not there to provide legal opinions or conclusions about the case.

Expert witnesses cannot opine on someone's state of mind

Expert witnesses are professionals in specific fields with years of experience who are hired by legal teams to explain a case and provide expert opinions. They are considered neutral parties and are not supposed to provide biased opinions or draw conclusions about the case.

Expert witnesses must testify based on their experience and the facts as they understand them. They cannot utilize biased opinions, information from outside the case, or other bits that don't come from personal professional experience and facts recorded by the court. This is to ensure that the expert witness does not “usurp the province of the jury” and that the jury is not "overwhelmed by the so-called 'experts''.

In deciding whether to admit expert testimony, the judge should, where possible, receive an estimate of the known or potential rate of error of the methodology employed. Forensic experts should avoid assertions of absolute or one hundred per cent certainty if the methodology is subjective and thus potentially subject to error.

Expert witnesses are not informed as 'experts' to the jury

Expert witnesses are professionals in specific fields with years of experience, and they are often called upon when a case heavily involves their field of expertise. They are not connected to the events in question and are considered neutral parties. While they can provide expert opinions, they are not informed as experts to the jury.

In the United States, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the testimony of expert witnesses. This rule has been amended to emphasize that expert opinions must stay within the bounds of what can be reliably concluded from the expert's basis and methodology. Judicial gatekeeping is crucial because jurors may lack the specialized knowledge to evaluate the reliability of the methods underlying the expert opinion and to determine whether the expert's conclusions go beyond what their basis and methodology can reliably support.

For example, in the case of United States v. Xue, expert witnesses were not allowed to opine on the term "trade secret" as it is a legal term of art with a specialized legal meaning. Instead, they could testify using alternative terms such as "confidential" or "proprietary" to describe the nature of the information. Similarly, in Berckeley Investment Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, an expert witness was prohibited from rendering a legal opinion.

Expert witnesses are also not allowed to provide opinions on a person's state of mind, as this could influence the jury's perception of the case and the party's mindset. They can, however, provide facts and opinions based on their expertise that support an argument without directly concluding or opining on the plaintiff's or defendant's mental state.

In summary, while expert witnesses play a crucial role in providing specialized knowledge and opinions, they are not informed as experts to the jury. Their role is to provide impartial and objective insights within their field of expertise, while the jury deliberates and forms its conclusions based on the facts and evidence presented in the case.

Expert witnesses cannot opine on the law

Expert witnesses are professionals in specific fields with years of experience who are hired by legal teams to explain a case and provide their opinions. However, it is important to note that expert witnesses cannot opine on the law. This means that they are not allowed to provide legal opinions or interpretations of the law. The role of interpreting the law and explaining it to the jury belongs solely to the judge.

In the United States, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence addresses the testimony of expert witnesses. While this rule allows expert witnesses to opine on "ultimate issues", it does not permit them to offer legal opinions. The amendment to Rule 702(d) emphasizes that each expert opinion must stay within the bounds of what can be concluded from a reliable application of the expert's basis and methodology. Judicial gatekeeping is crucial because jurors may lack the specialized knowledge to evaluate the reliability of the methods underlying expert opinions and to determine whether the expert's conclusions exceed what their basis and methodology can reliably support.

Furthermore, expert witnesses are prohibited from using legal terms with specialized meanings, as this could influence the jury's understanding of the law. For example, in the case of United States v. Xue, expert witnesses were not allowed to use the term "trade secret" because it is a legal term of art with a specific legal meaning. Instead, witnesses may use alternative terms such as "confidential" or "proprietary" to describe the nature of the information without directly referencing the legal term.

Additionally, expert witnesses must be careful not to provide opinions that directly conclude or influence the outcome of a case. While they can offer opinions based on their expertise, they should not aim to provide biased interpretations or conclusions, especially regarding an individual's state of mind. The role of expert witnesses is to provide neutral opinions that assist the jury in understanding the facts of the case, without influencing their legal interpretation.

In summary, while expert witnesses play a crucial role in providing specialized knowledge and opinions, they must refrain from opining on the law or using legal terms with specific meanings. The interpretation and explanation of the law are the sole responsibilities of the judge, who ensures that the jury understands and applies the law correctly during their deliberations.

Expert witnesses must stay within the bounds of their basis and methodology

Expert witnesses are professionals in specific fields with years of experience, and they are often called upon to provide their opinions in court cases that fall within their area of expertise. While expert witnesses can offer valuable insights and analysis, there are important boundaries that they must respect. One key constraint is that expert witnesses must stay within the bounds of their basis and methodology. This means that their opinions and conclusions must be grounded in their specific field of expertise and supported by established principles and methods.

In the United States, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence outlines the guidelines for expert witness testimony. The rule emphasizes that each expert opinion must be based on a reliable application of the expert's basis and methodology. This amendment underscores the role of judicial gatekeeping, ensuring that expert opinions are scrutinized for reliability and that their conclusions do not exceed what their basis and methodology can reliably support.

For example, in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Court charged trial judges with acting as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable expert testimony. This case set a precedent for evaluating the reliability and helpfulness of proffered expert testimony, emphasizing that qualifications, conclusions, and assurances of reliability are not enough. Similarly, the Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael case clarified that the gatekeeper function applies to all expert testimony, not just scientific testimony.

It is important to note that expert witnesses are not allowed to opine on the law itself or provide legal interpretations. While they can offer opinions on ultimate issues, they are prohibited from rendering legal opinions or using legal terms of art. This distinction is crucial, as it ensures that expert witnesses do not overstep their role and interfere with the court's responsibility to explain the law to the jury.

Additionally, when providing testimony, expert witnesses must be mindful of the potential rate of error in their methodology. They should disclose this information to the judge, who can then assess the reliability and admissibility of the expert's opinion. By following these guidelines, expert witnesses can ensure that their contributions to the legal process are both valuable and ethical.

Frequently asked questions