About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

68 Temple L. Rev. 699 (1995)
Expert Testimony in Pennsylvania

handle is hein.journals/temple68 and id is 711 raw text is: EXPERT TESTIMONY IN PENNSYLVANIA Mark . Bernstein* An expert witness is like a flea collar, said Flash Magruder. 'When your case is a dog, you need something that will chase the fleas away, something that will keep your case from scratching and biting itself in front of the jury.' Recent legislative efforts to enact a Uniform Code of Evidence have cre- ated heightened interest, awareness, and controversy regarding the Penn- sylvania law. Pennsylvania's law concerning expert testimony differs dramatically from the approach used by the Federal Rules of Evidence. These differences can pose pitfalls to the new practitioner as well as others primarily familiar with the federal approach usually taught in law school. In my opinion, the Pennsylvania rules better succeed in providing a jury with the information necessary to decide cases justly and appropriately. The Pennsylvania rules more effectively avoid a battle of experts by requiring the moving party to clearly offer and explicate the factual basis of opinion testimony. If properly understood and applied, the Pennsylvania rules, in- cluding the use of the hypothetical question, are not archaic forms but rather are essential tools assisting the proper fact-finding role of the jury. Despite some decisions liberalizing the bases for expert opinion evidence, Penn- sylvania law rejects the federal approach to expert testimony. This article will explore Pennsylvania law on expert testimony and com- pare it to the Federal Rules of Evidence. The article will explain Penn- sylvania law for the practitioner and describe Pennsylvania's more utilitarian approach to justice in fact-finding. I will explain the benefits of current law and advocate that no further extensions toward the federal approach should be approved, whether the law of evidence remains under judicial common law control or becomes codified legislatively. I. EXPERT TESTIMONY: TmE PERSONAL OPINION OF A QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL IN A FIELD OUTSIDE NORMAL UNDERSTANDING Expert testimony is the personal, professional opinion of a properly qualified individual, applying specialized knowledge to the evidence presented at trial on a subject beyond the common understanding of a jury. Virtually every civil case on which I preside includes expert testimony on either factual issues of liability, or medical issues of diagnosis or causation. Thus, in every case, I explain expert testimony to the jury as follows: * Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County; B.A., St. John's College; J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law School. 1. JAMES W. McELANY, McELHANEY'S TRIAL NOTEBOOK 469 (3d ed. 1994).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most