CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Method of Exam: Cross-Exam
......Expert Witnesses
.........Cross Exam. Generally
 22 Cards On This Topic:
  • Prior to testifying in form of opinion, expert may be voir dired on matters upon which opinion based.
  • Cross-exam of expert witnesses.
  • Court may exclude opinion testimony based upon matters which are not proper basis for opinion.
  • If expert's testimony based on information from another, that other person may be called and examined.
  • Assuming court's remarks re D's questioning fingerprint expert effectively cut off line of cross-exam., no abuse of discretion where relevance of cross was marginal at best and admitting more evidence would require undue consumption of time.
  • Counsel could not question E about all of D2's recorded jail conversations, just those the DA introduced, where they were admissible under EC 1220 when offered against the declarant, and counsel had no theory of admissibility for the other conversations.
  • Court properly permitted DA to cross-examine psychologist on matters going beyond the limited purpose for which his testimony was admitted where defense had not made proper 5th Amend. objections and had opened the door.
  • 5th Amend. did not preclude DA from impeaching defense expert with evidence on which he based his opinion, including hospital records and reports of court-appointed competency experts.
  • DA did not commit misconduct in cross-exam. of defense expert where cross-exam. was not conducted to establish evidence in aggravation, but to impeach E's opinions.
  • DA's impeachment of defense E with examples of D's character, which matched E's direct exam. profiles of murderers, was proper where examples all relevant to E's opinion that D did not have the character of a murderer.
  • Scope of cross-exam of expert witness is especially broad; DA may bring in facts beyond those introduced on direct exam in order to explore grounds and reliability of expert's opinion.
  • No violation of state evidentiary law by allowing introduction of [relevant] evidence during DA's cross-exam. of E or federal constitutional rights by restricting defense's redirect on same subject.
  • Trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting DA to cross-examine E1 & E2 regarding their evaluation of raw personality data and E3's written notations, including term "probable fake bad."
  • No error in questioning E re D's prior juvenile misconduct where DA told jury aggravating factors re prior violent conduct inapplicable and trial court instructed jury to disregard D's prior misconduct when considering aggravating circumstances.
  • Where PO's testimony about D's mental state based on asking D questions about D's mental functions and observing his behavior, not profess'l expertise, PO did not testify as expert and letter D offered to impeach him properly excluded.
  • No misconduct in DA's using paper wrapped around his own tie to simulate gag D used on V where court itself stopped questioning of expert as argumentative; Hill distinguished.
  • D not constitutionally entitled to ask E how a test he did not do would have been done; counsel's failure to elicit more specific testimony re comparison of paint samples was not fault of trial court.
  • No error in DA's asking defense expert on cross exam about information DA supplied expert where information merely concerned 'reasons for E's opinions.'
  • Criminal D has no constitutional right at restitution hearing to call and cross-examine psychotherapist who counseled V of D's crime.
  • Cross-exam of expert; difference in weight given to foundational facts and opinion; weight to be given opinion by trier of fact.
  • Cross-exam which utterly discredits party's expert witness does not deny that party a fair trial.
  • Cases dealing with the cross-examination of expert witnesses.


    •