- 57 -
Motion in Limine
Respondent objects to the testimony of petitioners'
"expert" witnesses, Mr. Raynault and Professor Mundstock,
on the ground that, if they are fact witnesses, then their
testimony is not acceptable under rule 602 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence, because they have no personal knowledge
of the facts at issue and, if they are "expert witnesses",
then their testimony is not admissible under rule 702 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence, because it would not assist
the trier of fact. We agree.
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides as
follows:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact
in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may testify thereto in the form of
an opinion or otherwise.
The report and testimony of neither of the witnesses who
testified on petitioners' behalf at the second trial
involved "scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge" that would assist the Court as "the trier of
fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue". Fed. R. Evid. 702. The burden of Mr. Raynault's
report and testimony is that the documents supplied to
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011