7623 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ultimate issue to be decided. In administrative proceedings, it is not unusual to ask the expert a legal conclusion, that is the ultimate issue to be decided, and to have the question allowed. Rule 703 provides that the facts or data relied upon by the expert may be admissible in evidence so long as they are the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field. Rule 705 requires the underlying facts basing an opinion to be disclosed if asked for on cross-examination. Prior disclosure is required only if the court so orders. Perhaps the major difference between expert testimony in the court trial and in an adjudicatory administrative proceeding is the extent to which hearsay is allowed. Hearsay evidence is: . . . testimony in court, or written evidence of a state- ment made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value on the credibility of the out-of-court asserter. (Cleary 1972:584) In short, hearsay relies on the assertions of someone who is not testifying. It is important to remember that the hearsay rule applies to both oral and written statements by an out-of-court party. In a traditional suit, then, a witness testifying on the proper analytical methods for establishing flows, for example, could not refer to a paper by another scientist confirming the appropriateness of his methods if the purpose is to suggest that the substance of that paper is true.1 Nor could a witness testify that his results were confirmed by Dr. Jones, with whom he talked last week. He can say that he used method "X" which was developed by Dr. Jones. Moreover, it is not hearsay if the witness says that method "X" is widely used. In administrative proceedings the hearsay rule is relaxed substantially. In the proceedings held to date before EPA administrative law judges, hearsay expert testimony has been allowed if there is a "nexus" (i.e., the connecting link) between the witness's expertise and the subject of the paper -- authored by another -- to which he wishes to refer. The witness in the hearing room must, however, be prepared to stand some cross-examination on the document. Thus, if he cannot say under what conditions the analytical methods used by the other investigator were acceptable, he may not be allowed to use the paper. This underscores a basic point: the witness must thoroughly under- stand the assumptions which underlie the methodology he is using. 1 However, in line with Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, it has been held that opinion testimony based in part upon reports of others which are not in evidence but which the expert customarily relies upon in the practice of his profession is admissible (Jenkins v. United States, 307 F.2d 113 [1962]). In other words, an expert may rely upon hearsay data in forming his opinion if the data is of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in that field. 3