One concept from the reading that interested me was section about Experts and Credibility. When a court allows an expert testimony, they are allowing someone to give their opinion to the jurors and the court. This is very different from ordinary witness testimony because witnesses can only give factual information about what happened, and their opinions do not hold weight with the jury or the judge. The criteria for a “qualified” expert are:
1. Education or training from a reputable institute
2. Experience in making judgments in the field
3. Reputation among peers as an expert in the field, and
4. Accomplishments in the field such as academic papers and awards
However, even if a person is qualified on paper under those four requirements, conflicting opinions and biases still exist in their field of expertise. Therefore, it is important for important to evaluate their testimony and compare it to that of other experts in the same field.
Hi!
ReplyDeleteI thought that this concept was really interesting too and I could not stop thinking of Law & Order when reading about it! I used to always watch Law & Order: Special Victims unit and remember that they would always bring in certain doctors and psychologists for their ‘expert testimony’ when trying to prove their theories and win a case and their testimony was definitely taken differently than a witness. Like you said, there can always be a bias no matter how qualified an individual is so like you mentioned, it is important for their testimonies to be evaluated and compared.