ABSTRACT
The expert witness may sound like a straightforward concept, but the way in which people are determined to be experts by the court may result in circumstances where they are permitted to testify about subjects for which they are not truly experts. For example, a toxicologist may be qualified as an expert to testify about blood alcohol levels, and in doing so may be allowed to testify about alcohol’s effects on the brain and the human body, when in fact he or she has limited knowledge of that area, and is more familiar with how the test is performed from a technical standpoint. As another example, in some courts a pathologist may be qualified as an expert and be allowed to testify about the quality of surgery that was done on a particular person, when in fact the pathologist does not have any real experience in surgical practice. As you might imagine, such occurrences may cast into doubt the validity of an expert witness’s testimony or opinions. There have been efforts in some states to require that experts be actively engaged in the field in which they are going to testify and that they meet certain criteria. However, attorneys, and many physicians, have opposed such legislation for various reasons, and in most places the expert witness is qualified as described above, based on knowledge that is simply more than that of the average person.
