NCJ Number
114393
Journal
Vanderbilt Law Review Volume: 41 Issue: 2 Dated: (March 1988) Pages: 261-282
Date Published
1988
Length
22 pages
Annotation
Because Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and its State counterparts abolished the prohibition of testimony on ultimate issues, counsel may attempt to elicit expert testimony on whether a particular act or omission was a proximate or legal cause of a situation.
Abstract
The issue of expert testimony in such cases implicates several restrictions that survive the broad permission of Rule 704 and raises questions about the proper role of expert and fact-finder in the application of laws to fact. The few published cases that have examined this issue are split. It is argued that expert testimony is inadmissible under rule 704. In addition, a technical expert on standards of care or actual cause is not qualified to offer an opinion on proximate cause and, thus, fails the expertise test of Rule 702. Further, expert testimony on proximate cause is inadmissible under Rule 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the possibility that such testimony will confuse the issues and mislead the jury. This in turn, raises a concern about all testimony on an ultimate issue even by a legal expert. Testimony on law applications incorporates the expert's experience in similar cases, thereby inviting the jury, implicitly or explicitly, to consider precedent. The judicial system values the jury precisely because it does not consider precedent, a value undermined by legal expert testimony. 110 footnotes.