$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper explains that, in the 2005 Court of Appeals case of the State of Maryland versus Jeffrey Louis Ragland Jr., a cocaine conviction charged was dropped, and a new trial was set because Judge Irma S. Raker deemed that the testimony of Officer Michael Bledsoe and Detective Kenneth Halter can only be admitted into the court as expert testimony. The paper relates the details of the case, which led Judge Raker to claim that the testimony of the officers was lay testimony rather than expert testimony. The paper concludes that Judge Raker held that expert testimony is subject to other discovery procedures and qualifications.
From the Paper:"When the trial took place, the prosecutor failed to inform the defense attorney that the State of Maryland would be calling on Officer Bledsoe and Detective Halter as witnesses. The prosecutor also failed to notify the defense attorney that they would be offering Officer Bledsoe and Detective Halter as expert witnesses. The defense attorney objected to Officer Bledsoe and Detective Halter testifying, but the testimony was heard, and the professional allegations were recorded in court."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Coady, C. A. (1992). Testimony: A philosophical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Geier, P. (2005, March). Md. court of appeals rules police officers' testimony went beyond. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20050321/ai_n14589298
Cite this Analytical Essay:
Expert Testimony (2010, April 13) Retrieved December 02, 2022, from https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/expert-testimony-119271/
"Expert Testimony" 13 April 2010. Web. 02 December. 2022. <https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/expert-testimony-119271/>