thedeviledadvocate
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 1
I'm not an attorney but I believe that is why Frye hearings were/are held. The court ruled this witness would only be allowed to testify about his area of expertise.
We can't have an electrician testify about a plumbing issue even if the person has knowledge of plumbing(as an example). Hope that made sense.
I agree with your example, however in this case, the expert is more like a general contractor who has expertise in many fields. The jury heard his qualifications, and based on those, even though JP ruled him as an expert only in the one field, the jury can still want to know what he has to say. I understand that JA's objections are legal and necessary. That still would not cause me as a juror, not to be curious about what this expert might have to say, especially when JA is so obviously trying to keep whatever this expert might have to say off the record.
I'm not saying JA is in the wrong, I am saying that a juror's natural curiousity may come into play, and a juror may want to know the answers.
As always, my entire post is my opinion only.