The defendant is on trial for conspiracy to import marijuana and arson on the hi

Question

The defendant is on trial for conspiracy to import marijuana and arson on the high seas. The prosecution has alleged that the defendant set fire to the shrimp boat on which he was transporting marijuana when he saw a Coast Guard vessel approaching. The boat was in flames and the defendant was nearby in a rowboat when the Coast Guard reached the shrimper. The prosecution has called an arson investigator from Miami who was trained at the FBI academy in arson investigation. He has investigated fires of suspicious origin, including boats in the harbor, for twenty years. The prosecution intends to ask investigator about arson and the defense established that the witness had never before investigated a fire on the high seas and could not opine about whether the motion of a ship at sea could stimulate the appearance of a two-origin fire. The defendant objects to any further testimony from this witness. The court should A. sustain defendant's objection because the issue of how the fire started is an issue of fact and not an appropriate subject for expert testimony B. sustain the defendant's objection because the witness is not qualified to testify about whether this fire on the high seas was arson C. overrule the objection and allow the witness to testify as a lay witness D. overrule the objection and allow the witness to testify as an expert.

Explanation / Answer

The Answer is D, overrule the objection and allow the witness to testify as an expert. Here the investigator is a trained arson investigator and is trained in FBI facility. Here there are no other witnesses who would testify in the said above case. As under the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (FRE), the said expert must be qualified and trained in the said activity and he is eligible to give the testimony to the court of law as an expert, provided he is trained and specialized in the said activity.Plus the testimony should be on the basis of the facts and pieces of evidence, which would support it.

In the above case, the arson expert qualifies to testify acc to the Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (FRE), hence court should allow his testimony as an expert.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.