SBS: TRIAL TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES

Useful overview on lawyers in court

The Goudge Report (2008)

much broader implications for civil and criminal justice in Ontario. It sets out

fertile ground for objections to expert evidence. In the context of criticizing the

pathologist, Dr. Smith, the Inquiry identified 10 criticisms, all of which can be

relevant in any case:

(i) he failed to understand his role was not to support the crown (or party

retaining him) (this goes to bias and may affect both weight and

admissibility);

(ii) he failed to adequately prepare for court (this would be relevant to the

weight of his evidence);

(iii) he overstated his knowledge in a particular area (this may be relevant to

his qualification as an expert or to weight);

(iv) he gave anecdotal evidence which was inappropriately unscientific (this

goes primarily to the weight of his evidence);

(v) he failed to give a balanced view of the evidence and was dogmatic and

was unduly certain (this again goes more to weight);

(vi) he was unprofessional and gave unwarranted criticism of other

professionals (this again goes more to weight);

(vii) he testified on matters outside his area of expertise (this should be the

subject of an immediate objection);

(viii) he gave opinions which were speculative, unsubstantiated and not based

on (pathology) findings (this goes to weight);

(ix) he used loose and unscientific language (again, this goes to weight); and

(x) he lacked candour and honesty (again, this goes to weight).

http://www.stevensonlaw.net/TrialTactics.pdf on flaws in Ontario's forensic pathology system had