[Archive]

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>"court qualified" is a misleading phrase. When you try a case with a technical or scientific issue, or another matter of expertise that the ordinary Joe Citizen would not be expected to know, a party to the case can retain an expert to testify on that point. The experts are NOT neutrals and are NOT "tested" by the court. What they really are rhymes with "Moors"; they never see the inside of a court-room unless they are going to testify favorably for the party who hired them and you know that in advance from discovery. <br /><br />Now, when you actually go to court, you present your "Moor" and the other side has the right to cross-examine the "Moor" on his or her qualifications (called voir dire-ing the witness). If there are no objections at all, the "Moor" will be able to testify without challenge from the judge. If the "Moor" is questioned but appears to have the degrees, course work or whatever else that would lead one to believe he has some knowledge in the subject field, the judge will let him testify, regardless of whether he is the absolute worst expert in the world. Getting to testify is all it means when a "Moor" claims he was "qualified" as an expert in court. The judge doesn't test the "Moor" to see what he knows. It is up to the other side to cross-examine the "Moor" and prove to the judge and jury that the guy is a clown. I have no doubt that if an authenticator who was clobbered on TV tried to testify in court again, a knowledgeable cross-examining attorney would be able to bring in the authenticator's errors to impeach him but he would not be able to exclude the expert entirely on the sole grounds that he is really, really bad at his job. <br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc