07 Dec
During a hearing or trial, many different types of testimony are offered. One area of testimony that is given special attention is testimony. · the opinion is based on sufficient facts or data; Similar to the requirements of Rule 702 for expert testimony, the testimony of a lay witness must be useful to the investigator. Unlike an expert who offers his or her own scientific, technical or other expertise to assist the jury on complex issues, lay testimony is generally considered useful if the witness is in a better position than the jury to form an opinion, and facts alone would not be sufficient to provide a full understanding of the testimony. As a rule, however, a lay witness cannot comment on the cause of the accident. Instead, a witness must be qualified as an expert witness to give such an opinion. Further information can be found in the relevant expert report on accident reconstruction. Witnesses must answer questions in the form of statements about what they saw, heard, smelled, tasted or smelled. Normally, they are not allowed to express their opinions or draw conclusions. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), a court allows a person who is not testifying as an expert witness to testify in the form of an expert opinion if it is both rationally based on his or her perception and helps explain the witness` testimony.
This is called the “secular rule.” For example, if a medical expert attempts to testify to an opinion based in part on hearsay that would not be admissible (perhaps something they heard during an interview with a witness to the incident), the other party may allow hearsay to support an argument that the expert misrepresented or misunderstood what the witness said. Typically, this problem arises during expert cross-examination, where the cross-examining person asks the expert to disclose the facts or data on which he or she relied to form an opinion. Although the expert was not required to disclose this information in the first place, if he or she is asked to provide this information during cross-examination, he or she must do so. [5] The witness must not only have experience that qualifies him or her in this field, but must also apply his or her knowledge in a manner that the court considers reliable. This involves focusing on the theories and techniques that underlie an expert`s opinion. The factors that a court may consider when evaluating an expert report are: Nevertheless, the latter statement would likely be accepted by the court because it satisfies the three elements discussed above; It is based on what the witness perceived, is useful in determining how the collision occurred, and is not based on scientific, technical or professional knowledge. The witness was careful to give only an approximate speed, as the indication of the exact speed would go beyond what anyone could reasonably determine from the mere observation of a moving vehicle. In addition, one would expect an ordinary person to be able to approach the speed of a moving vehicle. Finally, it is important to allow this statement, as there is no reasonable way to convey this important idea to the jury other than through statements of opinion.
Nevertheless, the expression of opinions may be necessary, useful and permitted in a variety of circumstances. We will focus on two types of opinions. The first is that given by an ordinary or “layman” witness. The second is the expression of an opinion by a person described as an “expert” in the field in question. Since the rules between the treatment of these two types of opinions are very different, we will treat them separately. The most common type of permissible secular opinion is called “fact-finding shortcut,” which refers to “immediate conclusions of the mind about the appearance, state, or mental or physical state of persons, animals, and things resulting from the observation of a variety of facts presented simultaneously to the senses.” State v. Alexander, 337 N.C. 182 (1994). Second, contrary to expert opinion, lay witness reports are limited to issues that are part of daily and daily experiences and understandings. A secular opinion must be the kind of thing that an ordinary person would infer under ordinary circumstances. An expert opinion has no such restriction.
Why is the distinction important? First, when assessing whether the use of lay or expert testimony is necessary, lawyers must consider the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) that apply to expert testimony. Rule 26(a)(2) requires the advice of designated experts. Conversely, testimonies of lay witnesses generally do not have to be disclosed before trial or supported by official reports. However, given the fine line that some courts draw between lay witness reports and expert testimony, lawyers must consider the respective competence of the authority at an early stage. Under rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, expert witnesses must provide the opposing party with a report outlining the expert`s testimony. The report must be sufficiently detailed and contain “all opinions that the witness will express, as well as the basis and rationale for them.” Below is a brief introduction to the rule of lay opinion, including the type of testimony that can be given and the use of certain facts and opinions to charge another witness. The courts have also ruled that lay witnesses can testify to their perception of the incident if they are obtained through previous personal submissions. The opinions on which lay witnesses were allowed to testify vary greatly from one province or territory to another.
Lay witnesses can give their opinion on the levels of light, sound, weight and distance, as well as on a person`s appearance, identity or behaviour. Moreover, the perceptions of lay witnesses must be rationally justified. However, the standard of rational perception is not strict. Witnesses need only apply their day-to-day logic to reach their conclusion. Statements of opinion summarizing the facts observed are admissible because “a description of all the detailed underlying facts that contributed to the formation of the witness`s opinion may be possible,” but “is impracticable because of the difficulties inherent in articulating one`s own analytical thought processes.” State v. Lesane, 137 N.C. App. 234 (2000). See, for example, State v. Braun, 182 N.C.
App. 115 (2007) (non-scientific testimony admissible for witnesses to testify that another motorist`s lane ended, requiring him to “try to push himself away” but was “forced to take the path he was on”); State v. Graham, 186 N.C. App. 182 (2007) (the officer`s testimony in the burglary trial that the door was violently pushed or pushed was a brief statement of permissible facts, based on “the fact that the door was tilted but still locked, and the door frame broken”); State v. Lesane, 137 N.C. App. 234 (2000) (witness may testify in the form of an opinion that the accused “attempted to shoot him in the head”, when statements about the exact body position, placement and angle would not have been practical); State v. Braxton, 352 N.C. 158 (2000) (admissible secular opinion in which prison officials testified that the screams sounded “as if anyone feared for his life” and that the crime scene “seemed worse than any pig murder he had ever seen”); Statement c.