Sidebar: expert testimony scope

📄 Sidebar: expert testimony scope — Friday, November 1, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\1\SIDEBAR-EXPERT-TESTIMONY-SCOPE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 7 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Tom Lange (part 2) Redirect examination of Tom Lange (part 3) ▶

Date: Friday, November 1, 1996 • Utterances: 3

Baker objects at the bench that a detective witness has been allowed to testify as an informal expert on blood trailing and candle burning throughout examination by Medvene, then is now being asked a question outside any established expertise. Judge Fujisaki agrees, ruling that the pending question — about drop-kicking a hat — falls outside the witness's area of expertise, and sustains the objection.

# 1 (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

# 2 MR. BAKER:

They have elicited testimony from this witness that he is an expert. They've talked about trailing of blood, which is an expert concept. They said the blood trailed at -- one of the blood drops in the walkway, they said that blood -- he said the blood on the back trailed Nicole Brown Simpson.

He's talked about -- he's become an expert on candle burning, and has talked about that.

He goes in and out of his expert mode as he chooses, in my view. But in any event, he certainly has testified as an expert in his detecting work in this case, pursuant to the questions asked by Mr. Medvene.

# 3 THE COURT:

Well, I think the question calls for expertise on drop-kicking a hat. I don't think that that covers that area of expertise.

Sustain the objection.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Robert Baker

He goes in and out of his expert mode as he chooses, in my view.

Baker's core complaint: the plaintiff's side has been using this detective as an ad hoc expert without formally qualifying him, getting the benefit of expert testimony without the procedural constraints.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

I think the question calls for expertise on drop-kicking a hat. I don't think that that covers that area of expertise.

Fujisaki's dry framing — 'expertise on drop-kicking a hat' — signals skepticism about the question's foundation while sustaining the objection on narrow grounds.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Blood drop in the walkway described as 'trailing' — referenced as example of earlier expert-style testimony elicited from the detective

discussed

Informal

Candle burning — cited as another topic on which the detective testified beyond lay witness capacity

discussed

Informal

A hat, apparently at issue in the pending question about drop-kicking

challenged

Notable Exchanges (1)

Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker argues the detective has functionally been testifying as an expert throughout Medvene's examination and should be treated consistently; Fujisaki sidesteps the broader argument and rules only on the immediate question, sustaining on narrow grounds.

strategic

Light Moments (1)

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Fujisaki's deadpan framing of the objectionable question as requiring 'expertise on drop-kicking a hat' has a dry humor to it amid otherwise routine procedure.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8103 • 3 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103