![]() 6381 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. The provisions of this Rule 701 amended November 2, 2001, effective January 1, 2002, 31 Pa.B. 6384 (November 24, 2001).įinal Report explaining the Janurescission and replacement published with the Courts Order at 43 Pa.B. No change in the current practice was intended with the elimination of this term.Īdopted May 8, 1998, effective Octoamended November 2, 2001, effective Janurescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013.įinal Report explaining the November 2, 2001, amendments published with the Courts Order at 31 Pa.B. Within Article VII, the term inference has been eliminated when used in conjunction with opinion. The term inference is subsumed by the broader term opinion and Pennsylvania case law has not made a substantive decision on the basis of any distinction between an opinion and an inference. On January 17, 2013, the Rules of Evidence were rescinded and replaced. (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witnesss testimony or to determining a fact in issue and (a) rationally based on the witnesss perception If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses. Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Experts Opinion. He has represented agency witnesses and wants to again.ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY ![]() Overstatement by this author? House Republicans are betting otherwise.ĭisclosure: The author was General Counsel of the House of Representatives. House Republican sly leaks and distorted retellings at hearings will undermine the agency and deceive the public. Harmless forwarding of e-mail chains will blaze into asserted smoking guns. The witness’s intimidation-induced smallest missteps will be blown up to disproportion. Necessary clarifications will not have been made. The agency record will be besmirched and the public misled. It might also be noted that the harm, though falling first on the agency witnesses, will knock down the agencies and the public too. House Republican counsel can outspend them into the poorhouse by obliging them to personally pay for private lawyers. These are civil servants with limited means, families they support, and often heavy obligations. The witnesses we are talking about are not Elon Musk and Bill Gates. Second, and perhaps worse, the witnesses will have to pay out of their own pocket for private lawyers. In contrast, with their lawyer there, he or she will know how to fight off, for example, questions by trickery asking for speculation. But, lay witnesses will find it hard to argue, by themselves and unsupported, with several tough committee lawyers who bite off, and chew into bits, unrepresented witnesses. What would happen if the government failed to hire such counsel for agency witnesses?įirst, the witnesses will not know their rights. Anticipating the impeachment of Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, the government has hired private counsel to make his case. In a related context, this has already happened. It has been upheld many times that the government can hire counsel for such agency witnesses. There is a way out to protect the witnesses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |