REPLY 6 NOTES

REPLY 6-2 EG (100 words with 1 reference)

Being a professional in a specific field and having extensive experience or knowledge is a key part of what makes someone an expert witness (Cornell Law School, n.d.).  To become a certified expert witness an individual would need to have knowledge, skills, and practiced experience as well as be able to report facts/evidence clearly and concisely while being able to argue logically about them in court (Foresight, 2021). It may differ from organization what is needed in court; however, it is important that an expert witness is knowledgeable in the area they are being asked to discuss. They use their knowledge to give professional opinions in court using sufficient facts or data and reliable principles or methods—which helps provide valuable contributions to the justice system (Cornell Law School, n.d.; (Dror, McCormack & Epstein, 2015). This can be anyone from (mental) health providers such as psychologists, medical providers, mobile phone analysts, engineers, or an expert in footwear impressions. They contribute to administering justice, but it is also important that they provide impartial and objective evidence (Dror, McCormack & Epstein, 2015).  

I do think that limiting the opportunity for expert witnesses to be present in court may be harmful to certain cases. However, while having an expert witness may add to the case it can also be detrimental to the defendant if the witness is not objective as they may say “facts” that may have been influenced by what they have been told about the case (Dror, McCormack & Epstein, 2015). Expert witnesses add a great deal to court but there needs to be an understanding of what they are told about the case and how those case facts should not influence the expert's own knowledge (Dror, McCormack & Epstein, 2015). Just because a person is an expert in their field does not mean that they are not susceptible to bias, different interpretations, or fixations that may help with objectivity (Dror, McCormack & Epstein, 2015). Jurors are influenced by who is presented in court and having an unbiased professional whom the jurors cannot differentiate that the expert is being biased then it adds issues to the case. It may be good for jurors to have two different professionals in the same field with different perspectives as they can then work out the case with those opinions and find an in-between of information that is not biased and just straight facts.

REPLY 6-2 NG (100 words with 1 reference)

An expert witness is merely an individual who is a subject matter expert in the position they hold as they have special training, knowledge, and experience. “Experts provide important and valuable contributions to the criminal justice system…their testimony carries significant weight because they generally appear (and present themselves) as objective, impartial, and scientific” (Dror, McCormack & Epstein, 2015, para. 9). This role is typically for individuals who understand the origins of the human mind and behaviors. According to Foresight (2021) experts can come from a variety of fields such as psychologists, psychiatrist, medical, forensics, cell site analysists and closed-circuit (CCTV) analysts. 

An expert witness has more knowledge than the judge and jury therefore, they play an important role in cases that require them. “There’s no defined process by which you become a certified expert witness, providing candidates have relevant postgraduate clinical qualifications and a body of practiced experience” (Foresight, 2021, para. 16). All those who wish to act as an expert eyewitness must possess morals and ethics such as integrity. They must outline all evidence and clearly present it to the court in an unbiased manor.

The opportunity to present expert witnesses in court should be limited because not every case requires such an in-depth and unique expert witness. People could take advantage of it. An expert witness's credibility is meant to strengthen cases however some can weaken them which could in turn undermine a case. An example of a case that requires an expert witness is a domestic violence case. In this case an expert may need to assess the mental health of the parties involved. The offender could potentially meet criteria for a diagnosis and may require treatment. Moreover, the psychologist could further explain why the victim stayed and endured the trauma for as long as they did. The psychologist’s statement will hold weight in court as they are being relied on to deliver accurate information in regard to the case.

REPLY 6-1 XA (100 words with 1 reference)

The steps at a trial consist of; jury selection, opening statements, the presentation of the case/evidence, jury instructions, and the jury deliberation and verdict, according to the California Courts (2023). Jury selection is significant as the judge requests a “panel of prospective jurors” who are sworn to truthfully answer, and acknowledge their responsibilities as they will oversee the case. It is also important that the jury provide truthful answers during the prescreening process to ensure that there is a fair trial, away from bias. The next step is the opening statement, in which “the lawyer for the plaintiff in a civil case or the prosecutor in a criminal case may make an opening statement telling you what they expect the evidence to show.” The significance of the opening statement is to ensure that the courtroom is informed of potentially what occurred, not facts, in better words, providing the “framework and points of conflict.” The next step is the presentation of evidence, the evidence is introduced via a sequence of documentation, picture, or actual objects. During the deliberation, the jurors will select a presiding juror, who is a “lead” juror, representing the rest of the jurors as a spokesperson, as a whole, the jurors come to a decision on the case. The verdict, if an agreement is made among the jurors, “in a civil case, the judge will tell you how many jurors must agree in order to reach a verdict” but for “a criminal case, the unanimous agreement of all 12 jurors.” The steps of a trial are significant in order to ensure each case is handled fairly, for example, if the jurors have prior knowledge of the defendant or may agree or disagree with certain things, there may be bias or judgment present which may lead to certain jurors to dismiss the evidence as a whole.