Opinions – Everyone’s got one or two or three: A Look at Michigan Rules of Evidence 701-707
Lay Versus Expert Opinions (Rules 701 & 702)
Before delving into specific rules, it’s crucial to establish the fundamental distinction between lay witnesses and expert witnesses.
Lay witnesses are individuals with everyday experiences and observations, while experts possess specialized knowledge, skill, or training in a particular field.
This distinction directly impacts the admissibility and weight given to their opinions.
Rule 701 governs lay witness opinions. Here, opinions are only admissible if they are:
- Rationally based on the witness’s personal perceptions: This means the opinion must stem directly from the witness’s observations of the events or circumstances in question. For example, a witness can testify that a car “looked like it was speeding” if they observed its excessive speed firsthand.
- Helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue: The opinion should shed light on the witness’s observations or assist the jury in comprehending the facts of the case. An example would be a witness stating that a certain behavior “made me feel threatened” when explaining their emotional state during an incident.
Rule 702, on the other hand, empowers expert witnesses to offer opinions based on their specialized knowledge. However, their testimony must meet four key criteria:
- Relevance: The expert’s knowledge and opinion must be relevant to the specific issues at hand in the case.
- Reliability: The expert’s field of expertise, methodology, and conclusions must be grounded in reliable principles and methods recognized by the relevant scientific community.
- Factual Basis: The expert’s opinion must be based on sufficient facts or data, either presented in evidence or personally observed.
- Application: The expert must reliably apply their expertise and methods to the specific facts of the case at hand.
Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Second Amendment rights taken away?
Have you been charged with a crime?
Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law 248-357-2550
Rule 703 provides further clarity on the sources of an expert’s opinion. Experts can base their opinions on facts or data in the case they have been made aware of or personally observed, even if not yet formally admitted into evidence. This allows for greater flexibility in utilizing their expertise.
Rule 704 addresses the question of “ultimate issues.” Opinions are not inadmissible simply because they touch upon the core question of the case, known as the “ultimate issue.” For example, in a medical malpractice case, an expert may be able to offer an opinion on whether the doctor’s actions fell below the standard of care, even though this goes directly to the heart of the jury’s decision.
Rule 705 deals with the timing of the disclosure of the factual basis for an expert’s opinion. Generally, experts can state their opinion and its rationale without first disclosing the underlying facts or data. However, the opposing party may have the opportunity to delve into these details during cross-examination, ensuring transparency and allowing the jury to assess the basis of the opinion.
Rule 706 empowers the court to appoint independent expert witnesses in certain situations. This might occur when both parties present conflicting expert opinions, or when the court deems neutral expertise crucial for fair and balanced adjudication.
Finally, Rule 707 governs the use of learned treatises for impeachment purposes. Learned treatises are scholarly publications in a field of expertise. This rule allows for cross-examining expert witnesses by bringing to their attention statements in reputable treatises that contradict their testimony. However, these treatises are not admissible as standalone evidence and can only be read into the record for impeachment purposes.
The Impact of Opinion Testimony: Weighing the Scales
Understanding the intricacies of Rules 701-707 highlights the delicate dance between lay and expert opinions in the courtroom. These rules safeguard against unreliable or prejudicial pronouncements while enabling the valuable contribution of both everyday understanding and specialized knowledge. The jury ultimately acts as the arbiter of fact, tasked with weighing the credibility and persuasiveness of all opinions presented, whether from lay witnesses or experts.
Important:
This article provides a simplified overview of the Michigan Rules of Evidence for informational purposes only. It should not be interpreted as legal advice. When facing legal matters, always consult with a qualified attorney for professional guidance.
The Michigan Rules of Evidence are subject to change over time. Always consult the latest official version for accurate information.
Here is the link to the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook. Check the footer for the latest update.
Related Articles
Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rules 901-903 Authenticating Evidence
Michigan Rules 901-903 - Evidence Authentication Ever wondered how that document or recording made its way into a Michigan courtroom? The answer lies in Michigan Rules of Evidence 901 to 903, which govern the crucial step of authenticating evidence. This article...
Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rule 801-807 Hearsay Evidence
Michigan Rules of Evidence 801-807 Hearsay: In the courtroom, truth-finding is paramount. Yet, not every statement offered as evidence directly reveals the truth. Enter the realm of hearsay, statements made out of court, and the complex rules governing their...
Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rule 601-615 Witnesses
Navigating the Witness Box: A Look at Michigan Rules of Evidence 601-615 In the courtroom, witness testimony plays a crucial role in unveiling the truth and determining the outcome of a case. However, not everyone can simply walk into the courtroom and take the stand....
Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rule 501 – Privilege in General
Rule 501. Privilege; General Rule. Privilege is governed by the common law, except as modified by statute or courtrule.Have your rights been violated?Have your driving priviledges been revoked?Has your professional license been suspended?Have you been charged with a...
More Posts
Illegal Firearms in Michigan
Illegal Gun Ownership in Michigan: Insights and StatisticsThe issue of illegal gun ownership in Michigan is a complex one, influenced by various factors ranging from criminal activity to loopholes in regulatory measures. Understanding who owns illegal guns is crucial...
Restoring Second Amendment Rights in Michigan
Restoring Your Gun RightsAs of 4/17/24...There is still a second amendment The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution grants citizens the right to bear arms, a fundamental aspect of American freedoms. However, in some cases, just like every other right...
Oregon governor signs a bill recriminalizing drug possession
Oregon governor signs a bill recriminalizing drug possession into lawOn April 1, 2024, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed House Bill 4002 into law, effectively recriminalizing the possession of small amounts of certain controlled substances. This legislation marks a...
John Sinclair, the inspiration for Ann Arbor’s Hash Bash, dead at 82
John Sinclair, the poet whose imprisonment for marijuana inspired the start of Ann Arbor’s long-running annual Hash Bash in the 1970s, has died. He was 82.Sinclair's passing occurred on Tuesday, April 2, 2024, at a Detroit hospital, merely four days prior to his...
Disciplining Student’s Speech Violates First Amendment
You go girl!!!A public high school was found to have violated the First Amendment when it suspended a student from her cheerleading team for using profane speech off campus. Mahanoy Area Sch Dist v BL, No 20-255, ___ US ___ (June 23, 2021). The U.S. Supreme Court has...
Marijuana reform advocates demand apology from Kamala Harris
So SorryMarijuana reform advocates demand an apology from Kamala Harris for locking up pot smokers and slam her 'political hypocrisy' for now saying no one should 'go to jail for smoking weed!'Marijuana reform advocates are urging Vice President Kamala Harris to issue...
Federal Agency Smack Down on a Michigan Credit Union’s Cannabis Banking
Apple to ApplesAn independent federal agency has recently cited a Michigan credit union for non-compliance with regulations regarding banking services for the marijuana industry. Consequently, the financial institution has been directed to halt the opening of new...
Cannabis cash transactions aren’t suspicious says IRS
Following The MoneyLarge cash transactions by marijuana businesses should not be automatically flagged as suspicious, as per the latest IRS guidance. The tax agency's guidance aims to provide clarity on the federal Bank Secrecy Act, which mandates businesses,...
An Independent Review of the Intoxilyzer 9000
An Independent Review of the Intoxilyzer 9000 Part 1 - Residual mouth alcohol detection Counterpoint Volume 2; Issue 2 - Article 3 (August 2017) An article in the Core Skills III-2 Module Jan Semenoff, BA, EMAForensic CriminalistThe opportunity to conduct an...
The Intoxilyzer 9000 (part 1)
The Intoxilyzer 9000 (part 1 of 2)Roll-Out The Michigan State Police (MSP) initiated Intoxilyzer 9000 (Intoxilyzer) training for police officers statewide, commencing in 2023. In order to participate, officers were required to complete both preliminary breath test...