TITLE SEVEN — OPINION AND EXPERT EVIDENCE
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Form of Opinion. A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Qualification.
Sources of Qualification. An expert may be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, or by any combination of them. No formal credential, license, degree, or membership is required, and the absence of one bears upon the weight of the testimony rather than upon its admissibility, unless a statute provides otherwise.
Qualification Is Specific. A witness is qualified as an expert only as to the particular subject matter upon which the opinion is offered. Qualification in one field does not qualify the witness in another, and the court shall state the field or fields in which the witness is qualified.
Burden. The proponent of the testimony bears the burden of establishing each requirement of subdivision (1) by a preponderance of the evidence. The requirements of subdivision (1) are preliminary questions for the court under Rule 104(1), and in deciding them the court is not bound by the law of evidence except that of privilege.
Experience in This State. A person may be qualified as an expert upon the basis of experience acquired in the game environment, in the operation of a department or agency of the State, or in a trade, occupation, or calling carried on within this State, where that experience is shown to be sufficient to support the opinion offered.
Voir Dire Upon Qualifications.
Right to Voir Dire. Before an expert states an opinion, and after the proponent has examined the witness upon the witness’s qualifications, any adverse party may, upon request, examine the witness upon voir dire directed to qualification, to the sufficiency of the facts or data, to the reliability of the principles and methods, and to their application. The court shall grant a timely request unless the matter has already been determined upon a motion under subdivision (4).
Scope and Conduct. Voir dire under this subdivision is limited to the matters stated in paragraph (a) and shall not be used to conduct a general cross-examination. The court shall exercise reasonable control over its scope and duration under Rule 611(1), and may fix a time limit before the examination begins.
Where a Jury Sits. In a trial by jury, the court shall conduct voir dire under this subdivision outside the hearing of the jury where the examination concerns the reliability of the principles and methods or their application, and may do so in any other case where justice so requires, as Rule 104(3) provides.
Objection and Ruling. At the conclusion of voir dire, an adverse party may object to the witness’s qualification or to the receipt of the opinion. The court shall rule upon the objection before the opinion is received, and shall state the ground of its ruling on the record.
Waiver. A party who does not request voir dire does not waive an objection under this rule, but the court may consider the absence of a request in determining whether an objection first made after the opinion is received is timely under Rule 103(1).
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony.
When Made. A party may move to exclude or to limit the testimony of an expert on the ground that a requirement of subdivision (1) is not satisfied, that the opinion is inadmissible under subdivision (8), (9), or (10), or that the basis of the opinion does not satisfy Rule 703. The motion is a motion in limine within the meaning of Rule 103(6) and shall be made whenever the ground for it can reasonably be anticipated.
Time. In a civil action the motion shall be filed not later than forty-eight (48) hours before the time set for trial. In a criminal case the motion shall be filed not later than twenty-four (24) hours before the time set for trial. Time runs continuously in Coordinated Universal Time from the recorded event and is not extended by the absence of a court day. The court may entertain a motion filed later, or made orally at trial, upon a showing that the ground for it could not reasonably have been anticipated, or where the interests of justice so require.
How Made. The motion shall be filed and served as provided by Rid. R. Civ. P. 5 and Rid. R. Civ. P. 7.1, or by Rid. R. Crim. P. 13 and Rid. R. Crim. P. 32, and is served upon every other participant by the electronic filing system upon the Clerk’s acceptance of the filing. In a matter in which the general filing channel is closed, the motion shall be presented as the court directs and notice shall be given in the case’s Discord proceeding communications.
Contents. The motion shall identify the witness by the username of the account through which that witness acts, state each opinion sought to be excluded, state the ground of exclusion as to each opinion, and identify the disclosure, report, deposition, or other source from which the movant learned of the opinion. A motion that does not identify a specific opinion and a specific ground may be denied without a hearing.
Opposition. An opposition shall be filed not later than twenty-four (24) hours after service of the motion in a civil action, and not later than twelve (12) hours after service in a criminal case. The opposition shall state the qualifications relied upon, the facts or data upon which the opinion rests, and the principles and methods employed.
Upon the Court’s Own Initiative. The court may raise the admissibility of expert testimony upon its own initiative at any stage of the proceeding, upon notice to the parties and an opportunity to be heard.
Hearing.
Whether a Hearing Is Held. The court may decide a motion under subdivision (4) upon the filings alone where the material facts are not in dispute. The court shall hold a hearing where the motion presents a genuine dispute as to the qualification of the witness, the sufficiency of the facts or data, the reliability of the principles or methods, or their application, and where the resolution of that dispute cannot fairly be made upon the filings.
Where Held. A hearing under this subdivision may be conducted in the case’s Discord proceeding communications, in the game environment, or in such other manner as the court directs. The court may receive testimony, may permit the examination and cross-examination of the proposed expert, and may receive reports, curricula, underlying data, publications, and other materials.
Governing Law at the Hearing. In deciding the preliminary question the court is not bound by the law of evidence, except that of privilege, as Rule 104(1) provides.
Where a Jury Sits. In a trial by jury, a hearing under this subdivision shall be conducted outside the hearing of the jury.
Record. The court shall cause the hearing to be recorded in the manner prescribed for proceedings in the case, and the record of the hearing is part of the record of the case.
Findings.
Required Findings. Upon deciding a motion under subdivision (4), or upon an objection made under subdivision (3)(d), the court shall state on the record findings sufficient to disclose the basis of its ruling, addressing:
whether the witness is qualified, and in what field;
whether the expert’s knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
whether the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
whether the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
whether the expert has reliably applied those principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Considerations Bearing Upon Reliability. In determining whether principles and methods are reliable, the court may consider, among other matters:
whether the principle or method can be and has been tested;
whether it has been subjected to review by others in the field, and whether it has been published;
the known or potential rate of error, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation;
whether it enjoys general acceptance in the relevant field;
whether it was developed independently of the litigation, or was devised for the purpose of testifying;
whether the expert has accounted for obvious alternative explanations;
whether the expert employed in the courtroom the same intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field; and
whether there is too great an analytical gap between the facts or data relied upon and the opinion offered.
The List Is Not Exclusive and Not Mandatory. The considerations stated in paragraph (b) are neither a checklist nor a test. The court shall apply those of them that are useful to the field of expertise before it, and may apply others. The court shall not exclude testimony solely because a consideration stated in paragraph (b) is inapplicable to the field.
Reliability of a Process or System. Where an opinion rests upon the output of a process or system, including an automated log, a data extraction, or a computation performed upon platform or game records, the court shall determine whether the evidence describes the process or system and shows that it produces an accurate result, as Rule 901(2)(g) provides, and shall consider the matters governed by Rule 1108 and Rule 1109.
Weight Reserved to the Trier of Fact. The court’s function under this rule is to determine admissibility. The court shall not weigh the persuasiveness of a reliable opinion, resolve a genuine disagreement between qualified experts, or exclude an opinion merely because the court finds a contrary opinion more convincing. The soundness of a properly admitted opinion is tested by cross-examination, by contrary evidence, and by argument.
Rulings; Scope of Permitted Testimony.
Forms of Ruling. Upon a motion under subdivision (4) the court may admit the testimony, admit it in part, limit the field, the subjects, or the form of the opinions to be given, condition its admission upon the later introduction of proof under Rule 104(2), require the proponent to reframe an opinion, or exclude the testimony in whole or in part.
Effect of a Ruling. An order under this subdivision fixes the scope of the permitted testimony. An expert shall not state at trial an opinion outside the scope so fixed, and counsel shall not elicit one.
Preservation. A party who raised the same specific objection to the very same evidence in a motion under subdivision (4), and whose motion was heard and denied, preserves that objection for appellate review as provided by Rule 103(2).
Reconsideration. The court may reconsider a ruling under this subdivision at any time before the close of the evidence, upon a change in the proof or upon a showing that the ruling rested upon a material misapprehension.
Motion to Strike; Failure of Foundation. Where the testimony given at trial exceeds the scope permitted, or where a fact, datum, or condition upon which the admission of the opinion was conditioned is not introduced, any party may move to strike the opinion. The court shall strike an opinion whose foundation has failed and shall instruct the trier of fact to disregard it. Where the opinion so stricken was material and the prejudice cannot be cured by instruction, the court may declare a mistrial upon motion or upon its own initiative.
Opinion Upon a Question of Law.
General Principle. An opinion upon a question of the law of Ridgeway is not admissible. The law of this State is a matter for the court, of which the court takes judicial notice as Rule 202 requires, and no witness, lay or expert, shall instruct the trier of fact as to what the law is, as to what a statute, rule, ordinance, or constitutional provision means, or as to whether conduct satisfies a legal standard or an element of a claim, a defense, or an offense.
Opinions Framed in Legal Terms. An opinion that merely tracks the language of a statute, rule, or legal standard, and that thereby tells the trier of fact what result to reach, is not admissible. The court may require that an opinion be restated in terms of the conduct, condition, practice, or standard actually observed or applied.
What Remains Admissible. This subdivision does not exclude:
testimony as to the customs, standards, or accepted practices of a trade, occupation, profession, department, or agency, including the standard of care applicable within it;
testimony as to what a regulation, manual, protocol, or general order of a department or agency directs, where the directive is not itself the law of the State and where its content is a fact in issue;
testimony as to the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee or of an expense claimed as a cost, as provided by 7 R. Stat. § 132.201; or
testimony explaining specialized terminology appearing in a document, a log, or a communication.
Objection and Remedy. The court shall exclude an opinion offered in violation of this subdivision upon objection or upon its own initiative, and may strike an answer already given and instruct the trier of fact to disregard it.
Proceedings Before the Administrative Court. No witness before the administrative court shall be permitted to offer legal or policy conclusions as part of that witness’s testimony, as 3 R. Stat. § 141.105 requires. That prohibition applies to a lay witness and to an expert alike, extends to an opinion that a personnel action was authorized, warranted, or required by law or by policy, and is not subject to waiver by the parties. The administrative court judge shall exclude such testimony upon objection or upon the judge’s own initiative. Proceedings before the administrative court otherwise follow these rules, as 3 R. Stat. § 141.103 provides.
Opinion as to Mental State in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case, an expert shall not state an opinion as to whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the offense charged or of a defense. An expert otherwise qualified may state an opinion as to the defendant’s mental condition, its symptoms, its ordinary effects, and its presence or absence at a relevant time. Whether the element or the defense is established is a matter for the trier of fact alone.
Opinion as to Credibility. An expert shall not state an opinion as to whether a witness or a declarant is truthful, credible, or worthy of belief, as Rule 610 forbids. An expert otherwise qualified may describe the general characteristics of a class of persons, of a condition, or of a phenomenon, without applying that description to the credibility of a particular witness.
Disclosure; Exclusion as a Sanction. An expert’s identity and the substance of the expert’s expected testimony shall be disclosed as required by Rid. R. Civ. P. 19 in a civil action and by Rid. R. Crim. P. 14 in a criminal case. Where a party has failed to make a required disclosure, the court may exclude the opinion, limit its scope, grant a continuance, or impose another sanction, and shall impose the least severe sanction necessary to remedy the prejudice to the innocent party, as Rule 103(7) provides.
Number of Experts. The court may limit the number of expert witnesses upon a subject, as Rid. R. Civ. P. 13 provides, and may exclude cumulative expert testimony under Rule 403.
Compensation and Costs. A court may award court costs beyond those collected by game mechanics to the prevailing party where such costs are fees for expert witnesses and expenses for court reporters, as 7 R. Stat. § 132.201 provides. The fact, amount, and source of an expert’s compensation, and the frequency with which the expert has testified for a party, for counsel, or for a class of litigant, are proper subjects of cross-examination under Rule 705(3).