Not way back we posted about how a turncoat knowledgeable witness who switched to the darkish facet had been precluded from testifying in a number of circumstances. We’ve got one other case so as to add to the listing – King v. Depuy Orthopaedics Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223451 (D. Ariz. Dec. 15, 2013). Solely this time, Plaintiff argued the turncoat knowledgeable needs to be permitted to testify as a truth witness. However the court docket noticed that has a distinction with no distinction.
Particularly, plaintiff claimed to need the knowledgeable to testify relating to feedback he made to an FDA advisory panel in 2001, his discussions with different panel members, and the panel’s selections. Id. at *5. However that “purely truth testimony” was inadmissible for a number of causes. First, his discussions with FDA panelists are rumour. And even when plaintiff claimed to supply them not as proof of a defect however simply as discover, the court docket didn’t see the distinction and didn’t assume a jury would both. So far as proof of discover of defect goes, it’s the similar as proof trying to show the defect and subsequently is inadmissible rumour. Id. at *6.
Second, the testimony plaintiff needs to supply continues to be knowledgeable testimony—it includes the witness’ “specialised information” past what a lay particular person would know. Lay opinion testimony mustn’t concern “specialised explanations or interpretations that an untrained layman couldn’t make if perceiving the identical acts of occasions.” Id. at *7. It may hardly be disputed {that a} non-medical skilled would understand or perceive the FDA panel discussions the identical means an knowledgeable would. So, the turncoat knowledgeable’s testimony as a “truth” witness would largely overlap with what he would have testified about as an knowledgeable, making it inadmissible.
Lastly, the court docket concluded that permitting the turncoat to testify as a lay witness would result in jury confusion. Id. at *8. The court docket couldn’t low cost that jurors would afford higher credibility to the turncoat’s testimony primarily based solely on who he’s, an knowledgeable within the discipline.
Backside line, if he walks, talks, and appears like an knowledgeable—he’s an knowledgeable. And if he’s a turncoat knowledgeable, his testimony is inadmissible.
