I suspect you can't win this one. He is giving you his arbitrary rule for what a witness means.
Quote from: jeffjoe on November 21, 2004, 09:53:18 PMI suspect you can't win this one. He is giving you his arbitrary rule for what a witness means.But he stated that after the test, and there was no mention of it in the book. He never lectured that a witness is presumed to be a layperson. That's why the question is unfair, at least to me.
If the expert witness has personal knowledge, (meaning he has direct or circumstantial evidence other than his expertise, that is probative to the outcome of the case) he would be disqualified for conflict of interest. Take the DNA Expert in OJ Simpsons case, the one called by the DA., she has nor had any "personal knowledge" of the case, yet testified for 3 days or so, solely to explain the accurracy of DNA results and the methodology used.I should define "personal knowledge" and it will be easier to explain. I forgot, and can't look it up right now, the exact elements needed to have "peronal knowledge" I mean.