The recent response in another thread (Testy Attorneys), sparked this question.
Essentially I want a refresher on the difference between an expert vs fact witness. ?ÿI hope I never need to really know this again. ?ÿI dislike uncomfortable confrontational situations.
Expert Witnesses are treated much better (at least by one side) than Fact Witnesses in my very limited fairly recent experience.
Question: can an ??expert? witness be subpoenaed and compelled to show up to court and compensated as poorly for his time as a ??fact? witness?
?ÿ
?ÿ
If I saw an auto accident, I could be called as a fact witness
If I did car crash testing for a lab somewhere, I could be called as an expert witness.
I should have just done a search, sorry. ?ÿThere are many excellent threads already.
..
..
?ÿ
fat fingered that one, sorry..
One difference also is a expert can give opinions and also directly answer the question in front of the court. ?ÿIf no one is paying you as an expert then you can only be a fact witness if that is the way you want to play it.
If I??m subpoenaed, then I leave my folder at home. I don??t review the job, the day before. If I??m a expert, I review the day before, preparing for a full discourse.?ÿ
I??ve come as an expert, when subpoenaed, but I??d already been paid.?ÿ
n
The names tell the story. A fact witness is questioned about things they observed. What did you experience directly.
An expert witness teams up with the attorney and walks the hearing officer, judge or jury to a correct conclusion of what the facts mean. I have worked with the same attorney for a few years and it is incredibly satisfying when it comes together. Even getting your butt kicked is a positive experience.?ÿ?ÿ