On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 15:34 +1000, Craig Wright wrote:
The idea is that you stick to the facts. The moment you get into opinion
is where issues may arise. Expert testimony is about fact. Not opinion.
You can't generalize like that. Expert testimony is very well about
opinion. Not your personal opinion/view of right or wrong (judges decide
that), but your opinion on the case matter. For example, the court may
ask you your opinion on the common/normal use of certain software where
the plaintiff/defendant is suspected of misusing it. Your opinion has to
be based on facts, not outside influence or such, but in the end, it is
your opinion that convinces a jury or helps a judge to understand the
circumstance so he can pass judgment.
The Georgia law is applicable to criminal law cases - and ONLY criminal
law cases.
If you are hired by the state (i.e. Police, AG etc) - you are covered
under exemption. If you are hired by the defence, you are hired by the
attorney. This means that you also become covered under the rule unless
you are ignorant of judicial requirements and start spouting opinion
without a solid factual basis.
I'm glad to hear that, and I think that most uses of expert witnesses
fall into this group (being hired by attorney, civil or district).
But I wonder in what circumstances this rule does apply then? If you're
not working for counsel, how else might you end up in court? Surely not
hired by defendant directly without involvement of counsel?!?
Cheers,
Frank
--
It is said that the Internet is a public utility. As such, it is best
compared to a sewer. A big, fat pipe with a bunch of crap sloshing
against your ports.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
