An indigent may be entitled to have the court compel the attendance of an expert witness. It may be error to deny a request for an expert to testify on the issue of suggestive interview techniques used with a young child witness if there is a "particularized need" for the expert. State v. Kirschbaum, 195 Wis. 2d 11
, 535 N.W.2d 462
(Ct. App. 1995).
Items related to drug dealing, including gang-related items, is a subject of specialized knowledge and a proper topic for testimony by qualified narcotics officers. State v. Brewer, 195 Wis. 2d 295
, 536 N.W.2d 406
(Ct. App. 1995).
Generally expert evidence of personality dysfunction is irrelevant to the issue of intent in a criminal trial although it might be admissible in very limited circumstances. State v. Morgan, 195 Wis. 2d 388
, 536 N.W.2d 425
(Ct. App. 1995).
As with still photographs, a video photographer's testimony that a videotape accurately portrays what the photographer saw is sufficient foundation for admission of the video tape, and expert testimony is not required. State v. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449
, 588 N.W.2d 84
(Ct. App. 1998).
It was error to exclude as irrelevant a psychologist's testimony that the defendant did not show any evidence of having a sexual disorder and that absent a sexual disorder a person is unlikely to molest a child because the psychologist could not say that the absence of a sexual disorder made it impossible for the defendant to have committed the alleged act. State v. Richard A.P. 223 Wis. 2d 777
, 589 N.W.2d 674
(Ct. App. 1998).
When the issue is whether expert testimony may be admitted, and not whether it is required, a court should normally receive the expert testimony if the requisite conditions have been met and the testimony will assist the trier of fact. State v. Watson, 227 Wis. 2d 167
, 595 N.W.2d 403
The admissibility of novel scientific evidence: The current state of the Frye test in Wisconsin. Van Domelen. 69 MLR 116 (1985)
Scientific Evidence in Wisconsin: Using Reliability to Regulate Expert Testimony. 74 MLR 261.
State v. Dean: A compulsory process analysis of the inadmissibility of polygraph evidence. 1984 WLR 237.
The psychologist as an expert witness. Gaines, 1973 WBB No. 2.
Scientific Evidence in Wisconsin after Daubert. Blinka. Wis. Law. Nov. 1993.
The Use and Abuse of Expert Witnesses. Brennan. Wis. Law. Oct. 1997.
Bases of opinion testimony by experts.
The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R208 (1973); 1991 a. 32
The trial court properly admitted an opinion of a qualified electrical engineer although he relied on a pamphlet objected to as inadmissible hearsay. Comment on 907.03 and Judicial Council note. E. D. Wesley Co. v. City of New Berlin, 62 Wis. 2d 668
, 215 N.W.2d 657
A chiropractor could testify as to a patient's self-serving statements when those statements were used to form his medical opinion under sub. (4). Klingman v. Kruschke, 115 Wis. 2d 124
, 339 N.W.2d 603
(Ct. App. 1983).
The trial court erred by barring expert testimony on impaired future earning capacity based on government surveys. Brain v. Mann, 129 Wis. 2d 447
, 385 N.W.2d 227
(Ct. App. 1986).
While opinion evidence may be based upon hearsay, the underlying hearsay data may not be admitted unless it is otherwise admissible under a hearsay exception. State v. Weber, 174 Wis. 2d 98
, 496 N.W.2d 762
(Ct. App. 1993).
Although s. 907.03 allows an expert to base an opinion on hearsay, it does not transform the testimony into admissible evidence. The court must determine when the underlying hearsay may reach the trier of fact through examination of the expert, with cautioning instructions, and when it must be excluded altogether. State v. Watson, 227 Wis.2d 167, 595 N.W. 2d 403
An evaluation of drug testing procedures. Stein, Laessig, Indriksons, 1973 WLR 727.
Opinion on ultimate issue.
Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
History: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R211 (1973).
Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion.
The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give the reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the judge requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.
Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R213 (1973); 1991 a. 32
Court appointed experts. 907.06(1)
The judge may on the judge's own motion or on the motion of any party enter an order to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed, and may request the parties to submit nominations. The judge may appoint any expert witnesses agreed upon by the parties, and may appoint witnesses of the judge's own selection. An expert witness shall not be appointed by the judge unless the expert witness consents to act. A witness so appointed shall be informed of the witness's duties by the judge in writing, a copy of which shall be filed with the clerk, or at a conference in which the parties shall have opportunity to participate. A witness so appointed shall advise the parties of the witness's findings, if any; the witness's deposition may be taken by any party; and the witness may be called to testify by the judge or any party. The witness shall be subject to cross-examination by each party, including a party calling the expert witness as a witness.
Expert witnesses so appointed are entitled to reasonable compensation in whatever sum the judge may allow. The compensation thus fixed is payable from funds which may be provided by law in criminal cases and cases involving just compensation under ch. 32
. In civil cases the compensation shall be paid by the parties in such proportion and at such time as the judge directs, and thereafter charged in like manner as other costs but without the limitation upon expert witness fees prescribed by s. 814.04 (2)
(3) Disclosure of appointment.
In the exercise of discretion, the judge may authorize disclosure to the jury of the fact that the court appointed the expert witness.
(4) Parties' experts of own selection.
Nothing in this rule limits the parties in calling expert witnesses of their own selection.
(5) Appointment in criminal cases.
This section shall not apply to the appointment of experts as provided by s. 971.16
Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R215 (1973); Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 784
; 1991 a. 32
As sub. (1) prevents a court from compelling an expert to testify, it logically follows that a litigant should not be able to so compel an expert and a privilege to refuse to testify is implied. Burnett. v. Alt, 224 Wis. 2d 72
, 589 N.W.2d 21
Reading of report by expert.
An expert witness may at the trial read in evidence any report which the witness made or joined in making except matter therein which would not be admissible if offered as oral testimony by the witness. Before its use, a copy of the report shall be provided to the opponent.
Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R219 (1973); 1991 a. 32