Gigglingtoes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2014
- Messages
- 2,756
- Reaction score
- 1,201
EA's co-worker's testimony is rebuttable, though. Defense attorney will ask co-worker if he/she is a dentist or doctor. If he/she is not, they will ask what their experience/expertise is in identifying bite marks...all for the record.
This is why it is important that the detectives to have taken pictures of and measured the alleged bite mark - it's solid evidence. The testimony of any witness who was not with EA at the time he was injured will be impeached on cross examination.
Remember, this will be a trial with both sides putting on evidence and examining witnesses, not just the prosecutors. Preservation of evidence is crucial to making a conviction stick. I think some here lose sight of that; and, that's understandable.
This is a little comical to me... You're saying that a person going on the stand to testify, would be disregarded about being able to determine a bite mark unless they are a dentist? :thinking: That's silly.
I am sure while an attorney may ask that question to try to make the witness of the bite mark not seem knowledgeable, most people in the world can tell a bite mark and a juror would not mind if they weren't a dentist.
Kind of like... I can hear a cough and know someone is sick. Not a doctor, but I know what a cough is.
Jmo