Reputation and Opinion

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Revision as of 14:51, 9 July 2012 by Jsalome5 (talk | contribs) (Created page with "=Background= As a general rule, opinion evidence is inadmissible. Witnesses are supposed to testify about facts, not opinions. The witnesses should present the facts, then the...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Background

As a general rule, opinion evidence is inadmissible. Witnesses are supposed to testify about facts, not opinions. The witnesses should present the facts, then the jury (trier of fact) can form opinions on the facts.

Compendious statement of facts is an exception to the opinion evidence rule: lay witnesses are permitted to testify in the form of an opinion if, by doing so, he is more able to accurately express the facts he perceived. There are no degrees of expertness in lay opinion : e.g. no one is an expert witness about whether someone is unable to drive, whether the police or not (but do have this for expert evidence). There is a broad spectrum for allowing testimony of lay people (e.g. handwriting, age of goods, moods). No opinion can be given on legal issue.

A lay person is not qualified to testify on a number of subjects to safeguard against speculation. E.g.: Eyewitness identification and item recognition are opinion matters.

The drawing of interferences are generally prohibited in courts (we do not want police officers coming into court and simply saying "in my opinion, the accused was driving under the influence of alcohol".

Lay opinion evidence is admissible to identify a person or a thing.

There are two exceptions to the rule disallowing opinion evidence: common knowledge and expert opinion.

First Exception to the Rule Disallowing Opinion Evidence: Common Knowledge

Second Exception to the Rule Disallowing Opinion Evidence: Expert Opinion