NJ State Trooper Trial: What do you think about this ruling? It puzzled me.

[Mike 03]

I'm NOT a lawyer; just someone who is fascinated by trials, and have read some of the loathesome hornbooks, believe it or not, for pleasure.

Today I saw something I'd never come across before:

1. The Prosecution calls an expert witness and his expert Accident Reconstruction report is admitted into evidence.

2. But the report constitutes the bulk of the focus of Direct Examination.

3. The defense attorney is forbidden to question the expert Accident Reconstructionist on particular aspects of his report, including his conclusion that the State Trooper was careless and reckless.

Some questions that occurred to me:

How can the prosecution call an expert witness, go in great detail through his report, and the defense not be permitted to question on all aspects of the report?

I understand that the scope of cross is limited by the scope of direct, but when you introduce an expert report, shouldn't the entire report itself be subject to examination, even by the defense?

Although I've made no bones about the fact I think the defense attorney is not the greatest, this was one ruling against the defense I didn't understand. It doesn't initially seem fair.

I was not aware you could admit an expert's report into evidence and redact or render inadmissible particular sentences or conclusions from that report.

Interesting stuff.

Any thoughts?

ON EDIT:

By no stretch of the imagination should anyone draw the conclusion, from my question, that I favor one side or the other. It is the process that fascinates me.

SECOND EDIT:

This is important, although it sounds absurd: It was the defense attorney that wanted to introduce the testimony from the report that the defendant was driving recklessly. I know it sounds hard to believe, but from the judge's expression on his face, he found it hard to believe too.

[imdjh]

1. I was watching that yesterday. Is it over?

[Iggo]

2. Was the expert's report entered into evidence?

If so, I'm with you.

[Mike 03]

4. Yes, the entire report was entered into evidence, with one provision, that there not be

any reference made to one sentence about a stop sign being "abnormally" far to one side of the intersection.

And there was also a reference to changes made after the accident, but there had been a number of 407 hearings into this issue, and the Court was adamant that subsequent changes to the intersection not be admissible.

So a sentence regarding future "amber lights" added to the intersection was stricken from the report.

I will defer to law students and lawyers as to whether this is fair or not.

[baldguy]

3. Both sides must have stipulated that the contents of the report were accurate.

Normally, the prosecution would have it's experts, then the defense would have it's own experts. If the testimony differed, it would be up to the judge & jury to determine which to believe - based on the evidence presented.

Sounds like the defense fucked up.

[Mike 03]

5. It would not surprise me. One thing the Court said is that the motion or proffer or whatever you

call it came rather late.

[Mike 03]

6. Self kick, just in case there are other opinions. NT