Expert Testimony Criminal Trial
Expert testimony is frequently used by both the prosecution and the defense in criminal matters. Whether such testimony will be allowed is important because experts are generally permitted to testify in the form of an opinion. However, there are some instances where lay witnesses can testify in the form of an opinion. See Fla. Stat. § 90.701 (“If a witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony about what he or she perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion when: (1) The witness cannot readily, and with equal accuracy and adequacy, communicate what he or she has perceived to the trier of fact without testifying in terms of inferences or opinions and the witness’s use of inferences or opinions will not mislead the trier of fact to the prejudice of the objecting party; and (2) The opinions and inferences do not require a special knowledge, skill, experience, or training.
Experts differ from law witnesses primarily due to their formal training or experiences. Fla. Stat. § 90.702 reads, “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if: (1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” Fla. Stat. § 90.702.
Sometimes, the improper admission of opinion / expert testimony will cause a case to be reversed on appeal. For example, in Proctor v. State, 97 So.3d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed two convictions for uttering a forged check and two convictions for grand theft after the trial court allowed the officer to identify defendant as the man cashing two stolen checks after comparing bank’s surveillance video to defendant’s photo found in state driver’s license database where officer was not an eyewitness to the crime, had no special familiarity with defendant, and was not otherwise qualified as an expert in video identification. Similarly, officer should not have been permitted to testify that he believed the signatures on the checks were defendant’s after comparing them with signatures found in the database where officer was not sufficiently familiar with defendant’s handwriting to form a reliable opinion and candidly admitted he was not an expert in handwriting comparison.
“When factual determinations are within the realm of an ordinary juror’s knowledge and experience, such determinations and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom must be made by the jury.” Proctor, 97 So.3d at 314,quotingRuffin v. State, 549 So.2d 250 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). As such, Proctor’s convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.
Contact Brandon Legal Group
The attorneys at Brandon Legal Group are experienced trial attorneys and will challenge the improper admission of expert opinions. Contact us today to learn more.
