EXPERT WITNESS QUESTION

That is very curious: Is this in Colorado or Oklahoma?
In California I do not believe the Board of Registration takes any position on the matter.
I believe it is up to the Court to decide/determine if you can testify as "expert"

to clarify, I am talking about court rules of procedure in CO, the state board does not define what an expert is.

Even where this dirmal process doesn't exist a Professional needs to use caution. If you engage in activities you arent qualified to do, your license could be toast. That includes 'expert' testimony..

In Maine one (or one's client's attorney) simply has to convince the judge that a given witness is an expert. Licensure is usually an element of the argument but doesn't bind the judge to accepting anybody as an expert. Theoretically if your rodman can convince the judge he or she knows more than you know, He or she could qualify as an expert.

How do they define "published".

Could not a filed subdivision map, being accepted by appropriate jurisdiction and available for all to see be considered as published?

Paul in PA

MA is like Maine, the judge can qualify whomever they are convinced is an expert. It's kind of frustrating to testify "against' a unlicensed "qualified" expert!

I am aware of a case where expert A was NOT qualified as an expert because the lawyer did not do the correct paperwork, and expert B was qualified and testified as an expert. Expert A had 20 more years of experience with a license, and had faithfully and routinely furthered his own education since being licensed - college courses, association workshops both as participant and instructor, panel discussions, legislative process participation, etc., and expert B had zero formal continuing education whatsoever, and obviously had a very "shallow" understanding of the case law and legal principles that applied to the matter before the court. Oh well.

I've been qualified as an "expert" so I guess I'm an "expert," i.e. a drip under pressure (according to my Dad).

In CA, it is up to the discretion of the Judge. Each side is supposed to disclose their experts with their list of witnesses. There is no requirement that a person be licensed to be an expert, but it certainly helps.

There is a well-known forester who lives not far from me who has testified as an expert as to identifying evidence of GLO surveys many times. He is not a licensed surveyor but is among the best at recognizing and identifying evidence of the old GLO surveys.

California Evidence Code ??720 says:
(a) A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates. Against the objection of a party, such special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education must be shown before the witness may testify as an expert.
(b) A witnessƒ?? special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may be shown by any otherwise admissible evidence, including his own testimony.

There are no other qualifications stated in CA law that I'm aware of.

That boils down to if one party presents you as an expert, and if the other party doesn't object, the court will most likely say you're an expert.

If one party presents you as an expert, and if the other party does object, you will be asked to explain your qualifications and answer some questions from the challenging party's attorney, then the Judge will decide whether or not he or she thinks you are an expert. Professional registration is persuasive, but not conclusive.

Our Board's executive director (who may read and respond) has made statements in a public Board meeting that in enforcement cases (where the expert is charged with identifying negligence, incompetence, fraud, and other violations of laws governing practice), he prefers to have surveyors who are not generally considered to be experts in the field, or to use less experienced licensees. When questioned by a Board member about this, among the reasoning he gave was ingrained "regional incompetence" of more experienced surveyors and describing a recalcitrance to consider that there may be other acceptable ways of performing a survey task or to consider that the way they've always done a thing may in itself be violating the law. He and his staff also made several statements that they believe that those who have experience as expert witnesses in civil court are merely hired guns who ascribe or deny liability of the parties according to who is paying their fee.

Although the Board, both specifically by the Professional Land Surveyors' Act and by portions of the Government Code are required to hire outside consultants by a QBS process, they do not apply that to their retaining experts. As a result, I've known some who are very knowledgeable and thorough, and some whose competence in the area of practice that they claim expertise in is even up to minimal acceptable competence to practice. (Board experts are self-qualifying. There is no means of verifying their expertise employed by the Board.)

Many years ago, I was stipulated to be an "expert" witness in an AP bench trial - by opposing counsel and the judge said - OK, that's cool.

I had no license. Nonetheless, our side prevailed, and I embarrassed one of those genius surveyors that we've all encountered at conferences and association meetings.

SS

I began testifying in court about surveys in 1974 when I was 21.
At that time the local courts did not know jack and made it up as they went along.
Mostly I testified to the evidence found and that it was in what deeds and why one deed was senior to another.
That college boundary law course at TJC took alot of research and reading outside of class and it really paid off.
TY Col. Hendrix.

Cee Gee, post: 451624, member: 451 wrote: In Maine one (or one's client's attorney) simply has to convince the judge that a given witness is an expert. Licensure is usually an element of the argument but doesn't bind the judge to accepting anybody as an expert. Theoretically if your rodman can convince the judge he or she knows more than you know, He or she could qualify as an expert.

Same in AZ