Expert Witness and Firearms health
An expert witness is a person who is accredited by a court of justice as an authority on a subject who has knowledge beyond that approachable to the ordinary person. The person, in order to be an expert witness, must be sufficiently certified and approved by the court of justice. Exert witnesses not only put up factual information and depth psychology but they also attest many legal issues playing a healthy role in un-riddling a case.
In order to be accepted as an expert witness, the witness must generally present his or her qualifications on the stand so that the judge and jury understand what sets the witness part from other witnesses. Rather than testifying on legal matters, expert witnesses provide factual information and analysis which may be beneficial to a case. Scientific evidence is thought to be intrinsically more reliable than other kinds of evidence, such as eyewitness accounts and statements from defendants, because of its physical basis. (Peoples, 2006)
Even though an expert witness does not provide any potential pitfalls or traps in which he can easily be entrapped when being inquired by the lawyer or the judge, but there are a number of contemporary grounds and tactics that are used and supported by witnesses today that may prove to entrap them. For example many witnesses intend to support the argument that they put forward in the court is based on the evidences that they extract from forensic analysis of the data that is obtained and extracted from the crime scene.
However many a times these evidences might prove to be extremely fallacious and erroneous in terms of application. Many a times a witness may not be able to differentiate between the reality that seems to be clearly overshadowed by his own personal prejudices and biases. Hence in these cases it might be very difficult for even an expert witness to stick to the claims and observations that he made earlier. It is important that the witness in this case assumed an expert must not perplex the elements of facts and personal observations and perceptions.
The witness must stick to the statements and analysis that he presented at the early stages and must not fluctuate or change them with the passage of time. Furthermore he must also realize and understand that everything he says must be rationally and logically supported with the help of concrete and substantiated evidences.
Daubert trilogy serves as the gold standard for the admittance of scientific evidence and expert testimonial. It was formulated as a result of the following three United States Supreme court cases.
One was between Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and Daubert, which held that Rule 702 did not incorporate the Frye "general acceptance" test as a basis for assessing the acceptability of scientific expert testimonial.
Second was between Carmichael and Kumho Tire Co., which held that the judge’s gate keeping function identified in Daubert applies to all expert testimonials, including that which is non-technological.
Third was between Joiner against General Electric Co., which held that an abuse-of-delicacy measure of review was the proper standard for appellant courts to use in reexamining a trial court's decision of whether expert testimonial should be admitted.(Jackson, 2004)