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: 220989 Find in a Library
Title: One Witness, Two Hats, Three Cases
Author(s): Catherine M. Guthrie
Date Published: October 2007
Page Count: 2
Sponsoring Agency: National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law
Gulfport, FL 33707
Document: HTML
Type: Issue Overview
Format: Document (Online)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article presents case examples regarding police officer testimony as viewed by three different appellate courts.
Abstract: Police officers may testify as an expert witness in one case and a lay witness in another. However there has been some debate as to whether an officer can offer both kinds of testimony in the same trial; in other words, whether a policeman can wear "two hats" on the witness stand. The first case, Eason v. United States, presents an evolution in one court's view of dual testimony. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that there should not be a per se ban in criminal trials against dual expert and lay testimony from a single witness. Instead the court of appeals held that the decision should be left to the trial court's discretion in each case whether the danger of jury confusion could be neutralized by lesser measures than exclusion of dual testimony altogether. The second case, United States v. Dukagjini provides an indepth assessment of the problems created when a law enforcement officer testifies as both an expert and a lay witness. In its analysis the appellate court reviewed some of the risks intrinsic in the dual role context: the designation as an expert confers an aura of trustworthiness and special reliability upon the witness, which could cause the factfinder to give the witness's lay testimony unmerited credibility. Attorneys might be reluctant to cross-examine a fact witness about their expert testimony because an unsuccessful impeachment attempt could actually bolster the credibility of the witness's lay testimony. There is an increased risk that the expert will exceed the scope of permissible testimony and convey "sweeping conclusions" about the defendant. The last example, United States v. Freeman, illustrates one of the most recent cases on the issue. The Ninth Circuit also reiterated the Second Circuit's decision not to categorically ban such dual testimony. References
Main Term(s): Court procedures; Court rules; Legislation; Police court relations; Police testimony; Testimony
Index Term(s): Criminal justice overview texts; Criminal justice research; Criminal justice standards; Expert witnesses; Technical experts
Note: Downloaded December 20, 2007
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.