Leonardo Angiulo: Mass. Appeals Court Explains Expert Testimony in Drug and Drunk Driving

Monday, October 06, 2014

Leonardo Angiulo, GoLocalWorcester Legal Contributor

Testifying at trial is like any other occasion when a person tells what they know. But, given that trials are a bit more formal than conversation over a cup of coffee, there are rules that apply. Who is allowed to testify as an expert is a fine example of how rules govern testimony in important ways. Two recent cases from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court provide insight into what is, and is not, permitted under our rules of evidence.

Section 702 of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, aka “the guide,” explains when and how a witness may qualify and testify as an expert. First, expert testimony is supposed to be used to help the judge or jury listening to evidence at trial understand the facts involved or decide what the facts mean. Second, to testify as an expert a witness must have a opinion resulting from properly applying their specialized knowledge to facts relevant to the case.

As the notes to section 704 of the guide explain, just because a witness may be admissible as an expert doesn't mean they can say whatever they want. There is an important line that exists between giving opinions on questions that a jury must answer and improper testimony. An expert, for example, may be able to testify that they did a scientific test and found that a substance is cocaine. If a defendant is charged with possession of the tested substance the expert's opinion would be cited by the Commonwealth when asking the jury find the defendant guilty. What the expert may not do, however, is testify to whether the defendant is guilty. Even with those limitations expert testimony is powerful stuff because it gives a position of authority to particular witnesses and provides explanation for evidence that might not otherwise be understood by the ordinary citizen.

Two recent cases from the Massachusetts Appeals Court dealing with expert testimony help shape how these rules may be applied. While the cases themselves deal with different types of experts, the underlying principle is the same: not all expert testimony is created equal.

In Commonwealth v. Paine published on October 2, 2014 the court chose to take on what it means to have a sufficient opinion about the nature of pills. In that case, a witness was offered by the Commonwealth as an expert from the State Police Crime Laboratory. That witness was called in order to identify certain pills as controlled substances in an effort to prove the case against the defendant. During testimony, the witness described the process by which she identified the pills as looking at the markings, comparing those to known manufacturer designs, and essentially calling it as she saw it. This, according to the Appeals Court, was not enough to support a conviction because the test she used did not provide the kind of scientific analysis required. The witness couldn't say what the pill was made of, only what was written on it.

Nothing in the Paine case deals with whether this expert was qualified to testify. What it does focus on is the limits of expert testimony. The expert could only testify to what she knew, what was stamped on the pill rather than what the pill was made of, and that testimony did not provide evidence supporting guilt. Since experts testify to evidence, rather than guilt or innocence, the principle of section 704 controls and explains, in part, how the Appeals Court came to their conclusion.

Similarly, the October 3, 2014 case of Commonwealth v. Guinan looked at expert testimony from a drunk driving case. In it, they examined the question of what it takes to be qualified as an expert on a particular topic. The subject in this case was whether an electronically assisted power steering system was working properly at the time of a crash. According to the court, in order to testify on this topic it would necessarily have to be within that witness's field of expertise.

Even though the witness offered by the Commonwealth was qualified to talk about the mechanical integrity of cars, and conduct accident reconstruction, that doesn't make him an expert in everything. Since any opinion on the question of fact at trial required expertise in the area of computer software or software engineering, which the witness did not testify to having, this opinion about the power steering should have been excluded. It was the notable lack of independent judgment using the information from the case, as required by Section 702, that contributed to the court's finding that the witness should not have testified as an expert.

While every case is different, and there are many people who have specialized knowledge on subjects as varied as ballet and chemical engineering, the principles apply uniformly. In order to be an expert, and have a meaningful opinion, it takes more than a firm belief in your own testimony.

Leonardo Angiulo is an Attorney with the firm of Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski in Worcester handling legal matters across the Commonwealth. He can be reached by email at [email protected].