#Advantages of being an expert witness over a lay witness trial#
In a divided, unpublished memorandum opinion, a majority of the Superior Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the detective, without first being qualified as an expert witness, to provide opinion testimony about the inability of child victims of sexual abuse to recall specific dates and details of sexual assaults. Therefore, absent qualification as an expert witness, the trial court should have precluded this testimony.
Specifically, Jones claimed that this evidence constituted expert testimony because it was not within the scope of knowledge possessed by the average layperson but was rather based on the detective’s specialized training and experience concerning child victim responses and behaviors to sexual assault. On appeal to the Superior Court, Jones argued that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a detective to testify that child sexual assault victims are often unable to recall specific details and dates of sexual assaults. Jones was found guilty of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a person under sixteen years of age, unlawful contact with a minor, aggravated indecent assault, sexual assault, statutory sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child, corruption of minors, and indecent assault of a person under sixteen years of age. A PROPERLY QUALIFIED POLICE OFFICER MAY TESTIFY TO FACTS OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT AS WELL AS A TYPICAL VICTIM’S BEHAVIORS AND RESPONSES TO SEXUAL ABUSE HOWEVER, THE OFFICER MAY NOT OFFER AN OPINION ON THE CREDIBILITY OF ANOTHER WITNESS (That’s the jury’s job 😉 )
0 kommentar(er)
