CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Method of Exam: Cross-Exam
......Expert Witnesses
.........Wide Latitude Permitted
12 Cards On This Topic:
  • Cross-exam re conflicting expert opinions on whether D's husband was the battered spouse, and court's weighing impacts of the reports, was, if anything, harmless error.
  • Scope of expert cross-exam is especially broad; DA may bring in facts beyond those introduced on direct examination in order to explore the grounds and reliability of the expert's opinion.
  • Even had D preserved claim, no misconduct where DA's challenges to expert's qualifications and focus on fact county paid his fees were routine, and permissible.
  • Counsel may cross-examine expert witness more extensively and searchingly than lay witness, and prosecution entitled to attempt to discredit expert's opinion.
  • DA's question to E1 re E2's discipline record not prejudicial where court intervened as soon as objection made and admonished jury in terms favorable to defense.
  • Good-faith inquiry of expert as to relevant hearsay statements of another expert which he overlooked, proper cross-examination.
  • Wide latitude should be allowed in cross-examination of experts on their qualifications and reasons for the opinions expressed.
  • Wide latitude permitted when cross-examining expert witness; may be cross-examined on another source if he considered it in making evaluation.
  • Questioning of expert may be limited if areas of interest adequately covered in remainder of same expert's testimony.
  • Questioning expert on schizophrenia studies and discussing actors portraying schizophrenics legitimately showed in understandable way mental illness can be feigned.
  • 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.'
  • No ineffective assistance in not objecting to DA's asking experts whether they had testified at prelim hrgs where purpose was to show defense counsel had time to test conclusions of experts and evidence relevant.