NCJ Number
84340
Date Published
Unknown
Length
0 pages
Annotation
Major themes of this lecture are the use of hypothetical questions in direct examination of expert witnesses, the relationship of direct and cross-examination, and witness impeachment by means of an attack upon competence.
Abstract
Attorneys should employ hypothetical questioning of expert witnesses because it provides them with an opportunity for a preliminary summary of the case and because judges perceive it as guaranteeing that expert opinion rests on the evidence of the case. Expert witnesses can be impeached if they contradict themselves or are confronted by a contradictory statement from an authoritative work in the field. Credibility is the overriding issue in witness testimony, and it depends upon the appearance and impression of truth as perceived by the jury. In direct testimony, proponents 'accredit' their witnesses. The adversaries must 'discredit' these witnesses according to the impeachment procedures allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. A workable approach to these rules organizes them into nine exclusive categories, of which the first four question credibility by an attack on competence. The elements of competence (i.e, the oath, sense perception, recollection, and communication) can be turned around in cross-examination to indicate the opposite, thus impeaching the witness on grounds of incompetence. The Federal Rules of Evidence permit either party to attack the witness's credibility. For additional rules regarding witness cross-examination/impeachment and reviving witness memory, see NCJ 84339 and 84341.