What is the difference between testimony and evidence

Courts both before and after Daubert have found other factors relevant in determining whether expert testimony is sufficiently reliable to be considered by the trier of fact. These factors include:. See General Elec. Joiner , U. See Claar v. Burlington N. Compare Ambrosini v. Labarraque , F. Daily Racing Form, Inc. See Kumho Tire Co. Ashland Chemical, Inc. Velsicol Chem. All of these factors remain relevant to the determination of the reliability of expert testimony under the Rule as amended.

Other factors may also be relevant. See Kumho , S. Yet no single factor is necessarily dispositive of the reliability of a particular expert's testimony. See, e. Shaw Industries, Inc. A review of the caselaw after Daubert shows that the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.

Likewise, this amendment is not intended to provide an excuse for an automatic challenge to the testimony of every expert. When a trial court, applying this amendment, rules that an expert's testimony is reliable, this does not necessarily mean that contradictory expert testimony is unreliable. The amendment is broad enough to permit testimony that is the product of competing principles or methods in the same field of expertise.

As the court stated in In re Paoli R. The evidentiary requirement of reliability is lower than the merits standard of correctness. Pepsi Cola , F. Under the amendment, as under Daubert , when an expert purports to apply principles and methods in accordance with professional standards, and yet reaches a conclusion that other experts in the field would not reach, the trial court may fairly suspect that the principles and methods have not been faithfully applied. See Lust v.

The amendment specifically provides that the trial court must scrutinize not only the principles and methods used by the expert, but also whether those principles and methods have been properly applied to the facts of the case.

As the court noted in In re Paoli R. Yard PCB Litig. This is true whether the step completely changes a reliable methodology or merely misapplies that methodology. If the expert purports to apply principles and methods to the facts of the case, it is important that this application be conducted reliably.

Yet it might also be important in some cases for an expert to educate the factfinder about general principles, without ever attempting to apply these principles to the specific facts of the case.

For example, experts might instruct the factfinder on the principles of thermodynamics, or bloodclotting, or on how financial markets respond to corporate reports, without ever knowing about or trying to tie their testimony into the facts of the case.

The amendment does not alter the venerable practice of using expert testimony to educate the factfinder on general principles. As stated earlier, the amendment does not distinguish between scientific and other forms of expert testimony. The trial court's gatekeeping function applies to testimony by any expert. While the relevant factors for determining reliability will vary from expertise to expertise, the amendment rejects the premise that an expert's testimony should be treated more permissively simply because it is outside the realm of science.

An opinion from an expert who is not a scientist should receive the same degree of scrutiny for reliability as an opinion from an expert who purports to be a scientist. See Watkins v. Telsmith, Inc. If you have any problems with understanding or speaking English, with reading, poor eyesight or any health issue which affects your mobility, you should tell the person or the lawyer who asked you to come to Court.

You do not need a lawyer to appear as a witness in the Court. However, if you are concerned that the evidence you give may cause you a legal problem, you should see a lawyer before you give evidence. You will find a list of cases being heard that day on a notice board at the Court.

When you find the courtroom where the case will be heard, tell the court officer that you have arrived. You should then find the person or the lawyer who asked you to come to Court. You may be told approximately what time you will be giving evidence. You should then wait somewhere where you cannot hear what is going on in the Court. This avoids the possibility that it could be suggested that your evidence may have been influenced by what you have heard others say.

If you have to leave the Court building for any reason, let the court officer know where you can be found. When it is time for you to give your evidence, the court officer will show you the witness box and ask you whether you prefer to take an oath to tell the truth or to make an affirmation to do so.

An oath has religious significance and an affirmation does not. Your evidence will be considered in the same way regardless of the choice you make. You will then be handed a card which has the oath on one side and the affirmation on the other.

When people give evidence in Court, they are asked to take an oath or affirmation that they will tell the truth. It is an offence to give false evidence in Court after taking this oath or affirmation. If you would prefer to have the oath or affirmation read on your behalf because of poor eyesight or for any other reason, you need to tell the court officer this as soon as you arrive.

The Court also requires at least 24 hours' notice of any other arrangements that may need to be made to enable you to take the oath or affirmation. For example, the Court must be notified if you require a holy book other than the Bible.

Tell this to the person or lawyer who has called you as a witness. An affidavit is a written statement of evidence which the witness has sworn or affirmed to be true. Youmay be asked to make an affidavit before you attend the Court. A lawyer can help you make your affidavit but it must be in your own words. An affidavit must be sworn or affirmed before a person such as a justice of the peace or a legal practitioner. Your original affidavit will be on the Court's file and both parties will have copies.

You should keep a copy of your affidavit. If you have made an affidavit, the person or lawyer who asked you to come to Court will ask questions to confirm your name, address and the content of your affidavit. Sometimes, even when a witness's evidence is in affidavit form, a lawyer or person involved in a case may ask the Judge if they can ask you questions about a topic which is not covered, or covered properly, in the affidavit.

Sometimes, the lawyer or person who first called you to give evidence may ask to re-examine you to clarify the evidence which you gave. Cross-examination is when a witness is asked questions by the other person or lawyer in the case, ie by the "side" that did not call the witness to give evidence. One reason for cross-examination is to test the witness' evidence.

Another reason is to obtain evidence which the witness did not give and which may favour the other person. Once your evidence is finished, the person or lawyer who called you to give evidence will ask the Judge to excuse you from staying at Court. Once the Judge gives permission, you are free to leave the Court or to stay in the public gallery.

The evidence that you have given is publicly available except in rare situations and you can tell others what evidence you have given. However, it is important not to discuss your evidence with someone who has not given their evidence yet so that there is no suggestion that that person's evidence has been influenced by discussions with you. You are entitled to be compensated for costs and loss of earnings which you have incurred as a result of coming to Court.

This is the responsibility of the person or lawyer who has called you to give evidence and should include:. Department of Justice. Neither the U. Department of Justice nor any of its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website including, without limitation, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided.

Skip to main content. You are here Home » Legal Information. Basic information What is the order of events in the courtroom? What do I keep in mind when going to court? Why would I enter evidence in court? What evidence can I show the judge?