Judicial Interpretation Of Expert Testimony
1. Understanding Expert Testimony
Definition:
Expert testimony refers to evidence provided by a person who possesses specialized knowledge, skill, training, or experience in a particular field that is beyond the knowledge of the average layperson.
Key Features:
Experts can give opinions, unlike ordinary witnesses who can testify only to facts.
Expert testimony assists the court in understanding complex technical or scientific matters.
Courts have discretion to admit or reject expert evidence based on relevance, reliability, and necessity.
Judicial Issues in Expert Testimony:
Determining admissibility of expert evidence.
Assessing qualifications of the expert.
Evaluating reliability and methodology.
Balancing prejudice versus probative value.
2. Case Laws on Expert Testimony
Case 1: R v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9 (Canada)
Facts:
The accused was charged with sexual assault. The defense sought to admit expert psychiatric evidence regarding the complainant’s credibility.
Issue:
Whether the expert evidence was admissible.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court of Canada established four criteria for admissibility of expert evidence:
Relevance: Evidence must help the trier of fact.
Necessity: Must address matters beyond the common knowledge of the judge/jury.
Absence of exclusionary rules: Must not be excluded under existing law.
Properly qualified expert: Must have appropriate knowledge, skill, experience, or training.
Significance:
Set a landmark framework for admissibility of expert evidence in Canada.
Emphasized that expert testimony should assist the court, not replace it.
Case 2: R v. J.-L.J. [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600 (Canada)
Facts:
Expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS) was sought.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that CSAAS evidence can explain behavior but cannot establish guilt.
Courts must ensure expert evidence does not usurp the role of the trier of fact.
Significance:
Expert evidence is admissible to explain phenomena, not to prove the ultimate issue.
Clarifies limits of psychological and behavioral expert testimony.
Case 3: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993, USA)
Facts:
Plaintiffs claimed that a drug caused birth defects. The trial court had to determine whether scientific expert testimony was admissible.
Judgment:
U.S. Supreme Court held that expert evidence must meet scientific validity and reliability standards.
Introduced the Daubert standard, requiring judges to act as “gatekeepers”.
Significance:
Courts must assess methodology, testing, peer review, error rate, and acceptance in the relevant field.
Influential in jurisdictions following common law principles.
Case 4: R v. Abbey [1982] 1 SCR 446 (Canada)
Facts:
Expert evidence regarding intoxication effects was admitted in a sexual assault trial.
Judgment:
Supreme Court stressed that expert evidence must help the trier of fact understand technical issues.
Expert opinions cannot replace common sense or the court’s evaluation of credibility.
Significance:
Confirms that experts assist but do not decide the facts.
Highlights importance of link between expertise and the issue at trial.
Case 5: R v. Trochym [2007] SCC 6 (Canada)
Facts:
The defense presented psychiatric evidence on the accused’s diminished responsibility.
Judgment:
Supreme Court noted that admissibility depends on whether the evidence is beyond common knowledge and reliable.
Emphasized that court retains ultimate authority to weigh expert evidence against other evidence.
Significance:
Reinforces that expert testimony cannot overshadow the role of judge or jury.
Reliability and proper methodology are key.
Case 6: R v. J.A. [2011] SCC 28 (Canada)
Facts:
DNA and forensic expert testimony played a major role. The defense challenged methodology and admissibility.
Judgment:
Supreme Court emphasized that forensic expert evidence must be scientifically valid, reliable, and clearly explained.
Judges must ensure probative value outweighs potential prejudice.
Significance:
Highlights forensic evidence standards.
Reinforces judicial duty as a gatekeeper for expert testimony.
Case 7: R v. B. (K.G.) [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740 (Canada)
Facts:
The accused sought to introduce medical expert testimony on the behavior of sexually abused children.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled expert testimony can explain behavior or symptoms but cannot replace fact-finding by the court.
Significance:
Consistent theme: experts assist understanding, not decision-making.
Provides guidance on admissibility of psychological and behavioral evidence.
3. Key Judicial Principles on Expert Testimony
Admissibility Criteria (Mohan test):
Relevance, necessity, proper qualifications, no exclusionary rules.
Role of Experts:
Assist the trier of fact, do not determine guilt or credibility.
Reliability and Methodology:
Evidence must be scientifically or technically valid (Daubert principle).
Courts act as gatekeepers, evaluating methodology and reasoning.
Limits:
Expert opinions cannot replace common sense or jury evaluation.
Must focus on assisting, not deciding, the issue.
Special Considerations:
Behavioral, psychological, and forensic experts must ensure their testimony is explained in clear, understandable terms.
RELATED Blog
comments