2 ms·
If it was solely up to the opposing party, then they'd strike down every single expert. The judge still is the ultimate decider on what evidence (including expe
by ARandumGuy 2y ago
If it was solely up to the opposing party, then they'd strike down every single expert. The judge still is the ultimate decider on what evidence (including expert testimony) is admissible.
- SoftTalker 2y agoIt's the jury that ultimately decides whether the evidence is convincing, even if the judge allows it. The defense will try to cast doubt on the evidence when they make their arguments. This also reminds me of one of Norm Macdonald's bits. He says (very seriously) that if he were on a jury he would not convict someone on the basis of DNA evidence. "What do I know about DNA?" he says.