GENERAL46384 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

State employees cannot be required to present expert testimony against their will. Several courts have adopted a broad rule that such testimony is prohibited as constituting an involuntary servitude. Ondis v. Pion 497 A.2d 13, 18 (R.I. 1985) ("It is the obligation of a party who desires expert testimony to obtain the services of a qualified person on a voluntary basis."); Mason v. Robinson, 340 N.W.2d 236, 242 (Iowa 1983); Shelby County v. Kineswav Greens of America 706 S.W.2d 634, 637 (Tenn. App. 1985). This principle is applicable to experts employed by the government. Matter ofBrownine, 480 N.Y.S.2d 671 (Misc. 19$4). If the Plaintiffs believed they needed expert testimony to properly present their case, they had the same obligation as the rest of the parties to seek out and hire their own qualified expert witness. Dr. Posey's analysis and conclusions regarding the toxins and heavy metals issue constitute substantial evidence upon which the Board relied, in part, to approve this permit. If the Board's failure to issue the subpoenas in question was error, it was harmless. V. All Plaintiffs Had A Full And Fair Opportunity To Present Evidence. Plaintiffs argue that they were not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. They complain that they were not afforded enough time to present their evidence. These arguments aze without merit. If the Board denied them a full and fair opportunity to present their cases, the transcript should reflect some action by the Boazd interrupting a Plaintiff during a case presentation, or interrupting a plaintiff who is attempting to cross-examine a witness. In fact, the transcript does not reflect any such action by the Boazd. The Board did establish limits on the time each party had to present their case. T/ot. 3, p. 834-839. However, the limits were not strictly enforced. The record shows that all parties were given adequate time 13