Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

Where an expert opinion is based on facts not in evidence so that no jury could find 'sufficient facts' to support the opinion, it is an abuse of discretion to permit the testimony. See Zerbinos v. Lewis, 394 P.2d 886, 888 (Alaska 1964). Professor Wigmore notes a policy consideration regarding expert testimony: The jury are apt, especially where there are many expert witnesses and the evidence is voluminous, to remember and accept merely the net opinion of a witness, with little or no reference to the special premises on which it was based. Wigmore on Evidence, § 682 at 808 (3d ed. 1940). Professor Jones states: 'Nor should the opinion of an expert witness be invoked to supply a fact necessary to support his conclusion.' Jones on Evidence, § 14.27 at 659 (5th ed. 1972). 

Federal and state courts around the country have recognized that the methods traditionally employed for alerting juries to the fallibility of eyewitness identifications-cross-examination, closing argument and generalized jury instructions on the subject-frequently are not adequate to inform them of the factors affecting the reliability of such identifications. Cross-examination, the most common method, often is not as effective as expert testimony at ...

Register or login to access full content