expert witness

(redirected from Expert testimony)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

expert witness

[ikspurt′, ek′spərt]
Etymology: L, experiri, to try; AS, witnes, knowledge
a person who has special knowledge of a subject about which a court requests testimony. Special knowledge may be acquired by experience, education, observation, or study but is not possessed by the average person. An expert witness provides testimony or informed opinions on evidence. This evidence often serves to educate the court and the jury in the subject under consideration.
A person qualified by education, training, experience, occupation, present position, degrees held, publications and professional organization membership that establishes authority as an expert to give opinions

expert witness

Forensic medicine A person qualified by education, training, experience, occupation, present position, degrees held, publications and professional organization membership that establishes authority as an expert to give opinions; EWs are permitted to offer opinions in court related to their area of expertise which would not be permitted a witness without such status. See Expert. Cf Hired gun, Whore.

ex·pert wit·ness

(eks'pĕrt wit'nĕs)
In health care, someone with special training who testifies for the defense or prosecution in a court case to clarify esoteric points for the jury or judge.

expert witness,

n a person sufficiently trained in a given area of expertise who can give testimony relevant to a case in court.

ex·pert wit·ness

(eks'pĕrt wit'nĕs)
In health care, someone with special training who testifies for the defense or prosecution in court.
References in periodicals archive ?
o Breach of warranty claims typically require expert testimony
ACA finds it remarkable and noted in its amicus that the Fifth Circuit ruling in Accenture departs so dramatically from these clear legal requirements and from the several other circuits, such as the Second, Third, and Sixth, which have faithfully applied the Supreme Court's rulings in analyzing the factual foundation of expert testimony.
Before Daubert, American courts generally applied a very forgiving test when considering the admissibility of expert testimony.
Or, possibly considering whether being forced to send money yearly to an integrated state bar in order to practice law might be far worse, when that bar makes it clear they have no intention of supporting a much-needed overhaul of the morally corrupt and ethically challenged, not to mention intellectually dishonest, method we currently have for judging expert testimony in medical malpractice cases.
137 (1999), extended Daubert's general reliability holding to govern admissibility of all expert testimony proffered in federal courts.
However, for those who offer other advice or have additional business activities, this extra pressure is likely to make them question whether expert testimony is worth the stress.
We who believe that offering expert testimony in the legal environment is a noble and high-minded undertaking want our standards to be maintained at the highest level.
The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the lower court decisions, finding that expert testimony is not required as long as the breath test is conducted within a "reasonable" period of time after the driver last drove
2) Addressing these concerns, the Supreme Court set the standard for the admissibility of expert testimony in the 1993 case of Daubert v.
Princeton, which you may recall reading about in this column, and where expert testimony has revealed that of the $195 million of Robertson money that was supposed to train graduate students for the foreign service during the period 1990-2003, only $26 million paid for instruction of any kind.
Must a plaintiff in such a case introduce expert testimony as to the applicable standard for credentialing?

Full browser ?