skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 136458 Find in a Library
Title: Conflict Concerning Expert Witnesses and Legal Conclusions
Journal: West Virginia Law Review  Volume:92  Issue:3  Dated:(Spring 1990)  Pages:645-678
Author(s): C W Ehrhardt
Date Published: 1990
Page Count: 34
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: To date, the courts have not exhibited a clear understanding of when expert witnesses may express a legal conclusion, which traditionally has been condemned, and whether the prohibition against opinions in that form is still valid. Likewise, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not provide unambiguous guidelines because they do not address the admissibility of expert testimony in the form of legal conclusions.
Abstract: This paper addresses the admissibility under the Federal Rules of Evidence of three types of expert testimony which may involve the admissibility of testimony in the form of legal conclusions. The first type involves testimony embracing an ultimate issue of fact, which the author maintains should be routinely admitted as jurors can determine for themselves whether or not the evidence should be accepted. Testimony in which an expert witness is asked to apply a legal standard or definition to those facts is the second type of evidence. Here, the author concludes that Federal courts should apply the intent of the Federal Rules of Evidence by restricting the admissibility of opinion testimony which could mislead the jury. The final situation considered in this article is where counsel asks experts to express their opinions on substantive law; it is the author's opinion that this type of testimony should be prohibited as it is inconsistent with the role of the trial judge to determine the law and to so instruct the jury. 145 notes
Main Term(s): Expert witnesses; Rules of evidence
Index Term(s): Trial procedures
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.