7623 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

INTRODUCTION This document is not a legal reference. The purpose is to give practical guidance to field biologists and other professionals regarding what to expect when they become directly involved in some form of litigation, and are asked to present the results of their research or investigation. The discussion is directed primarily toward administrative hearings and courtroom proceedings related to the preservation of instream flows. Considerable reference is made to water pollution control because many practical lessons can be learned from this field. To avoid making this presentation unduly long, many generaliza- tions have been made and fine points of evidentiary rules have been ignored. The intent is to point out in a general way what one will be asked during cross-examination so that laboratory or field investigation procedures may be tailored to avoid the tragedy of having valuable scientific work rendered less useful for failure to follow a protocol. The specific preparation of a witness for a particular hearing, of course , necessarily must take place with the government trial counsel in the time immediately before one is to testifv and is shaoed largely by the substance of one's testimony. The reader should remember that the expert witness is a servant of the court. Much of the report is based on a primer developed for scientists by the EPA (Rogers 1974). Other information was gathered from persons who have served as witnesses. TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS TRIALS IN COURT The traditional way in which environmental issues are litigated is in a courtroom, either Federal or State. Cases involving instream flows are growing in number. Moreover, there have been hundreds of cases in which the State or Federal government brought actions against a polluter, either for violation of specific statutory or regulatory requirements or for violation of some public nuisance concept. The Reserve Mining case is an example of this: The Federal government based its claim for relief on the pre-1974 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.) and the water quality standards promul- gated thereunder; the plaintiff States sued largely on the basis of public nuisances ("unreasonable interference with the public's right to use and enjoy the environment"). Such cases require the presence and testimony of many expert witnesses. As more cases are decided and methods are standardized, there will be fewer in which expert witnesses will be called upon to testify; or at least, the witnesses will be called upon to present less controversial proof than before. This trend is because the country is gradually moving to systems under