Wednesday, December 8, 2021
Tutto sulle ultime informazioni


fichero de expertos

Application (1) fichero de expertos This rule does not apply to summary tests under Rule 18A, except as provided in…

By Usman , in Attività commerciale , at Ottobre 28, 2021

Application

(1) fichero de expertos This rule does not apply to summary tests under Rule 18A, except as provided in that rule.
Admissibility of written statements of expertise

(2) A written statement containing an expert’s opinion is admissible to trial, without proof of the expert’s signature, if a copy of the statement is provided to each of the registered parties at least 60 days before the statement is made as evidence.

Admissibility of oral expert testimony

(3) An expert may provide an oral opinion proof if a written statement of the opinion has been delivered to each of the registered parties at least 60 days before the expert testifies.
Idem
(4) The statement can also be presented as evidence.

Form of declaration

(5) The declaration must contain or be accompanied by a supplementary declaration indicating the following:

a) the qualifications of the expert;
(b) the facts and assumptions on which the opinion is based;
(c) the name of the person primarily responsible for the content of the declaration.
As long as the expert remains in the role of confidential counsel, there are good reasons to keep the privilege over the documents in his possession. Once he becomes a witness, however, his role changes substantially. His views and their foundation are no longer private advice for the party that held him back. He offers his professional opinion for the court’s assistance in his search for the truth. The witness is no longer in a partisan’s camp.He testifies objectively to assist the judge in understanding scientific, technical or complex issues within his or her professional competence. He is presented to the court as truthful, reliable, informed and qualified. It is as if the caller said, “Here is Mr. X, an expert in an area where the court needs assistance. You can rely on his opinion. It is sound. He is ready to support him. My friend can cross-question him as he likes. It won’t go anywhere. The witness has nothing to hide.

It seems to me that, believing the witness’s opinion to be reliable, the party who calls him implicitly renounces any privilege which previously protected the expert reports from production. He presents his evidence to the court and declares, at least initially, that the evidence will stand up to even the most rigorous cross-examination. This constitutes an implied waiver of the papers held by a witness that are relevant to the preparation or formulation of the opinions offered, as well as to his consistency, reliability, qualifications and other matters that affect his credibility.
An exception to the disclosure obligation concerns the part of the experts’ file that concerns the consultancy reserved to the lawyer, or the preparation for cross-examination by the counterpart’s experts.The court recognizes that experts can be called upon to serve in both advisory and impartial functions. It seems likely that a judge or teacher who rules on the merits of disclosing a portion of the file of an expert who has served in a dual capacity would make a disclosure error. It seems theoretically advisable for the lawyer to retain two experts wherever possible if an opinion and extensive consultation is required. If not, precautions should be taken, including any separate storage. In practice this appears to be rare.

The traditional practice seems to be to produce the file of the expert witnessing the trial during the cross-examination referred to in the VCC. However, the Delgamuukw decision appears to grant authority for the proposition that disclosure may occur at an earlier stage in the procedure. In longer trials, the judge exercising his inherent jurisdiction can, and often requires, early production on a material and fair basis. The lawyer should not assume that the entire file be manufactured and should examine the files of the experts before the opposing attorney reviewing it himself .

Comments


Lascia un commento


Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *

error: Content is protected !!