AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
The Federal Rules of Evidence governing lay opinions and expert testimony-rules 701 and 702 respectively-set forth the standards for admissibility of both categories of evidence. Such disclosures or agreements will ensure that important testimony that counsel hopes to rely on is not excluded on the eve of trial. To avoid any uncertainty, attorneys should consider either disclosing lay witness opinions or pursuing an agreement with opposing counsel as to the exact nature of the disclosures required for specific testimony to be elicited in the case. However, given the fine line some courts draw between lay witness opinions and expert testimony, lawyers must review the authority in their particular jurisdiction early in the case. Conversely, lay witness opinions typically need not be disclosed in advance of trial or supported by formal reports. Rule 26(a)(2) requires expert reports from retained experts. This article discusses the distinctions between lay witness testimony and expert testimony.Īs an initial matter, one critical issue lawyers must consider when assessing whether reliance on lay or expert opinions will be necessary is the disclosure requirements in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) that apply to expert testimony. Courts throughout the country have come to different conclusions about the scope of permissible lay opinions and what constitutes expert testimony. However, the distinction between lay opinions and expert testimony is not a bright line. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. When testimony is “expert” in nature, it must comport with the stringent standards articulated by the U.S.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |