Courts do not require witnesses to collect university degrees before
testifying as experts. Anyone who possesses special knowledge and
experience going beyond that of ordinary people is capable of giving
expert opinion evidence. Formal university qualifications add to
credibility, but are not required.
However, expertise must be proved. Education, training, research
and experience all help show what special knowledge you have that the
rest of us don't. You may be required to explain the credibility
of the teachers, textbooks or publications from which you obtained your
Even if you are an expert, courts won't always permit you to
testify. The expertise must be:
In reports and in testimony, an expert witness must be fair, impartial and objective.
If you know that you are going give an expert opinion, the court needs
to know how you got to know more on the topic than ordinary
people. Prepare and maintain a curriculum
vitae. It should:
research and experiments
positions or appointments
membership in professional societies
special achievements in the field
|personal contact information you
don't want the defendant to have
long paragraphs under each heading
high school graduation
Counsel disagree whether it should list the courts or cases in which you have been accepted as an expert. I quite like seeing this on C.V.'s. It helps me know how much preparation the witness needs. But I don't like long lists of cases.Don't worry if it seems short. The best qualified experts I have ever presented kept their C.V.s down to 2-3 pages by leaving out minor or unrelated information.
Send a copy of your C.V. with your report, and bring several copies to court.
At court, the lawyer tendering your evidence will need a "sound-bite" description of your expertise. They appreciate it greatly if you can give them one. Here are some examples. Don't feel bound to them. Your opinion may rely upon greater expertise than the descriptions I give:
||"I am an expert in ...
||... identification and
interpretation of skid marks on roads, and the calculation of the
speeds and dynamics of the vehicles that made them."
||... the theory and practice of
tracking human scents with police dogs, and
Police dog _____ is a trained and expert tracker."
||... finding, preserving,
interpreting, comparing and identifying friction ridge
impressions, including fingerprints and palmprints."
Some examples of unusual expertise that courts have accepted include:
A controversial area of expertise is opinion evidence whether a crime scene was "staged" in order to divert suspicion from the true perpetrator. The trouble is that the expert testifies based on what offenders "usually do", which constitutes psychological profiling. There's not enough science to back this up. R. v. Ranger 2003 CanLII 32900, 178 C.C.C. (3d) 375 (Ont. C.A.), and R. v. Clark 2004 CanLII 12038 (ON C.A.). In R. v. Klymchuk, 2008 CanLII 23495 (ON S.C.), the court accepted that this might be a useful investigative tool, but rejected it as evidence before the jury, particularly fearing that T.V. shows like C.S.I. might cause the jury to give it too much weight. Similarly, in R. v. Stobbe, 2012 MBQB 78, the court found that the expert simply provided the same inferences a jury could draw on its own; therefore, the expert did not assist the court. See also Murphy, 2014 YKCA 7.
Similarly, Mr Sekhon, 2014 SCC 15 drove a large load of drugs across the border. A police expert testified he had never in 1,000 drug investigations encountered a "blind courier" - a driver who didn't know that his load carried drugs. This too relied upon what offenders usually do (or know) to persuade the judge of his guilt rather than examining what this offender did (or knew). The judges of the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this evidence.
So don't give expert opinions about what criminals usually do unless very specifically asked. On the other hand, make a list of all the observations that made you think this, and make sure you tell the jury every item on your list. Let counsel draw all those observations into a logical conclusion.
Some opinions aren't really expert evidence at all, but common-sense
inferences from common experiences.
The prosecutor will introduce you to the court as an expert, using the
"sound bite" described above. Often, defence admits your
expertise. If not, the prosecutor will ask you:
The prosecutor will file a copy of your c.v. with the court.
Defence may cross-examine to show that you do not have the expertise you claim, or to show that your field of special knowledge is narrow. Although it's tactically unwise, some counsel will even cross-examine you generally on the opinion in your report.
As a police officer and a professional witness, it is never your job to ensure that one side or the other "wins". Instead, you must convey accurately what you know about the case to the judge (or jury). As an expert, this principle applies with even greater force. Indeed, if you try too hard to win the case, you may destroy your credibility, and wind up losing the case instead. R. v. Proctor, 2008 BCSC 19 (B.C.S.C.). In some provinces, the rules for civil procedure codify this duty of impartiality. (British Columbia, Ontario)
Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23,
the court held that judges should generally not let experts testify
unless the expert understands his or her duty "to be fair, objective and
non-partisan", and testifies to that effect when being qualified. They
gave this direction in a civil case. In civil litigation, the parties
choose experts who are most likely to assist their side, which tends to
lead to biased and partial experts.
The absence of such testimony caught the court's attention when a prosecutor's wife tendered expert evidence about her analysis of digital security video. Defence cross-examination showed that she gave a seminar emphasizing her value as a prosecution witness. She looked biased. Smith-Wilson, 2016 SKQB 33.
Because of the institutional sympathy between police expert and police investigator, the police expert is vulnerable to accusations of bias against the suspect. This becomes particularly acute if the police expert participates in the investigation of the suspect and then later offers himself as an "independent" expert. McManus, 2017 ONCA 188.
As much as possible, police experts should try to keep themselves separate from the investigations on which they give opinions.
Data base: The expert's report
should set out what relevant information you obtained about the
case. This may be:
- hearsay (such as eyewitness statements to an accident or photographs that others took)
- personal observations (the accident reconstructionist's observations and measurements of a collision scene or a dogmaster's observations of the dog's actions while following a track).
Role: Experts must present fair, objective and non-partisan opinions, and must provide opinion evidence only in areas within the expertís area of expertise.
Ontario's civil rule 4.1.01 imposes this duty on experts in Ontario's Superior and Appeal courts.British Columbia's Supreme Court Civil Rules requires experts to state their duties in their reports in the following language:
"Rule 11-2 of the British Columbia Supreme Court Rules places a duty on experts to assist the court, and not act as an advocate for any party. I am aware of that duty, I prepared this report, and, if required to testify, will testify, in conformity with that duty."In White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, the court suggested that experts should testify in these terms during the voir dire before a court should accept them as experts.
"I understand that the law requires me as an expert witness to present fair, objective and non-partisan opinions, and to provide opinion evidence only in areas within my area of expertise."
Analysis: The report should
explain the analysis, experience or logic applied to this information,
so that others can understand how you reach your conclusions.
Diagrammes, calculations and photographs help tremendously.
Conclusions: The report should
clearly state conclusions about what you do and
do not know. Use language understandable by a non-expert,
but stated sufficiently precisely that it can not be misinterpreted.
A fingerprint examiner might conclude: The thumb and left index finger
of [the known person] held the barrel of the revolver near the
muzzle. The orientation of the prints and the smudge marks suggest
that he held it with just those two fingers, leaving the handle dangling
down. However, there are other possible explanations for the
orientation and smudge marks. I can not determine when the the
prints were made.
An accident reconstructionist might say: The red Honda was travelling
at a minimum speed of 121.8 km/h before the tires started to skid.
Bring spare copies of your C.V. and report to court. Counsel
often forget how many copies are needed. You look more
professional if you have a spare available for the judge.
Because judges and juries don't have the training, knowledge and experience that you have, you should:
Often during testimony, experts are tempted to venture opinions that
extend beyond your expertise. The Crown always wants evidence that
makes the case perfect. Defence will challenge you or tempt you to
assert what seem to you to be obvious or logical extensions of your
opinion. Beware. It is far safer to assert "I don't have any
special expertise with respect to ..." than to be exposed as a fraud, or
contradicted by a real expert in the area.
Avoid expressing an opinion of the accused's guilt. Judges guard
their role as decision-makers in trials jealously. The judge or
the jury is the one who examines the evidence, draws inferences, and
concludes guilt. Therefore, when testifying, you should avoid
categorical remarks like "In my opinion, the accused is guilty".
Instead, you should say: "The fingerprint I saw on the window matched
the one I saw on the arrest form" or "Because conditions were good for
tracking, and because of the behaviour of my police dog, I believe that
the accused, who I found behind a bush, had recently gone there directly
from where the dog first started tracking."
Over the last decade, lawyers everywhere debated whether expert evidence must be provable and testable according to scientific method. Because this issue is not yet fully resolved, you should be clear about the difference between opinion based upon experience, and results based upon applied science.
When giving your testimony:
You can not tell the court whether a witness is credible, but, for the
purposes of your opinion you may say which evidence you trusted and
why. For example, a ballistics expert might say:
"The victim said many shots were fired at
him. But he was woken from his sleep. The neighbor said that
she was awake, and she heard only one shot fired. Because her
bedroom window was open, and only 40 feet from victim's window, I
took her version to be accurate. If only one shot was
fired, then the bullet that broke the victim's window is the one that
smashed the glass by the victim's bed."
of the Criminal Code requires the prosecution to give at least 30 days
notice to the defence of the expert, his or her expertise, and the
material the expert will cover. Defence also has some obligations
to give notice.
For counsel to comply with these obligations, they need your C.V. and a
written version of your opinion long before trial. Please don't
wait until the deadline, because last-minute scrambles create too many
opportunities for mistakes.
Crown's disclosure obligations require police experts to disclose all
relevant information in the possession of the police.
Usually the report will cover this, but not always.
If your opinion depends in whole or in part from information you received from other police officers or witnesses, then the court may ignore your opinion unless those other officers or witnesses testifies to the accuracy of the information you received.
For example, an accident reconstruction expert may reach the scene of a collision until after the wrecker removed the vehicles. An officer at the scene may point out the locations where the vehicles were found. Based upon that information, and the skid marks that the officer finds on the road, the expert may calculate the speeds of the respective vehicles. The expert knows about the skid marks from personal observation, but the locations of the vehicles is hearsay.
The court will allow the expert to testify about what the other officer said about the locations of the vehicles, but only for the purpose of explaining the opinion. Counsel must ask the other officer to testify in order to "establish" the facts on which the expert relies. R. v. Scardino (1991), 6 C.R. (4th) 146 (Ont. C.A.).
If your work was peer-reviewed, you may mention that fact in passing. Don't dwell on it, unless specifically asked. R. v. Rogers, 2015 ONCA 399 at para 63-64.
In R. v. Mohan,  2 S.C.R. 9 the court set out rules for lawyers as to what kinds of "expert" would be admitted in a trial, and for what purposes.
v. D. (D.),  2 S.C.R. 275 the
court limited the use of expert testimony on topics which didn't need
it. In that case, the court found that a jury did not need an
expert to tell them that complainants who delay reporting sexual abuse
are not necessarily untruthful.
Experts need not be scientists, so long as they do not present their
evidence as if it were science. Abbey,
2009 ONCA 624.
v. Yeh, 2009 SKCA 112, a police officer testified that based on
his training, he formed the opinion that the suspect consumed marijuana
within the preceding 4 hours. But his training didn't teach him
time-lines of symptoms of drug-use. He couldn't identify the
publications he read that gave him this idea. His expertise
(though probably accurate) wasn't proved to the court's satisfaction.
For more case law in this area, I refer you to Gibson's Criminal
Practice and Procedure - Chapter 31A, from which I borrowed some
material for this page. Or you could go to Watt's
Someone removed glass from the rear of a building, and leaned the panes
up against the building. Someone entered through the resulting
gap, and stole lots of valuable stuff. A fingerprint examiner
found Mr D.D.T.'s,
glass. A judge concluded that sufficed to prove his guilt of the
B&E and theft. The Court of Appeal disagreed.
As usual, the expert could not say when D.D.T. touched the panes of
glass. Unusually, the expert prepared no diagramme of the
locations of the prints. Nor, it seems, did the examiner look at
every print on the glass to determine if they all came from
D.D.T.. He said there were many, but he matched only 7. This
gap in the evidence left the possibility that others handled the glass,
and that D.D.T.'s fingerprints could have got there innocently. A
good investigator examines all of the available evidence; likewise, a
good forensic examination considers all of the available information,
not just the convenient stuff.
In the Goudge
Inquiry, (2008) an Ontario Judge investigated a series of
misdiagnoses by Dr Smith, a paediatric pathologist. Dr Smith
performed autopsies on children who died in suspicious
circumstances. He often "found" evidence of child abuse, which led
to prosecutions and convictions of innocent people. The report
identified factors which resulted in bad expert evidence: