Expert testimony is already defined by Indiana trial rules:
(a) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.(b) Expert scientific testimony is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the expert testimony rests upon reliable scientific principles.
Read Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses, Ind. R. Evid. 702, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
In the state's response to the defense's fourth franks motion, the state reveals that
the defense deposed ISP Sergeant Greg Edwards back in February, to document his review of the pings and evidence. In order for him to provide his opinion of this technical subject matter, he would have to be considered an expert under Rule 702.
The state then quotes Sergeant Edwards verbatim for several paragraphs where he explains the pings, how they work, and that the pings shift over to historical records when the phone can no longer be contacted. At least half of the state's discussion of pings is literally Edwards' testimony, and most of the further discussion is based on this testimony as juxtaposed with the defense's claims.
Lastly, this isn't a motion to decide if the jury hears the experts, nor is it a motion to decide if the case gets thrown out. It's a motion to have a hearing to decide if the search warrant is suppressed because it was unlawfully obtained.
If the defense just wants the experts to be heard, they will 100% be heard and cross-examined during the jury trial.
JMO