Impeachment of an Expert Witness

Expert witnesses are professionals that provide scientific, technical or other specialized
knowledge to assist the fact finder to comprehend the evidence or to determine the fact in
question. A witness qualified as such by knowledge, skill experience, training, or education, may
render evidence thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise1.

Section 161 of the Evidence Act outlines that; it is under the discretion of the court to permit
cross-examination of one’s own witness. The court may, in its own motion, consent to the person
who calls a witness to assert any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the
opponent party2.

Section 163 of the same Act, stipulates that any party may seek to impeach the credibility of a
witness by adducing evidence that inclines to the suggestion that the witness’s direct testimony is
unworthy of belief. The credit of a witness may be impeached by the adverse party, or, with the
agreement of the court, by the party who calls him3.

The impeachment of expert witnesses enables the attorney, who is actually not an expert in the
field or area which forms the subject matter of the issue, to prepare intelligently for the trial
process and to seek views of other experts in that field4.

The attorney may impeach the expert’s claims or assertions by advancing challenges to the
opinions of the expert witness. The lawyer may aim for the inconsistent statements, dishonest
character and contrary information or documentation produced by the expert witness. The
advocate must form or embrace his or her own list consisting of potential attacks, review the
questions to ensure their applicability and then structure the cross-examination to maximize the
utility of the questions5.

The purpose of the impeachment is to have the expert witness appear as unreliable, bias and
untruthful. The advocate impeaching the credibility of the expert witness may commence the

1
Graham, Michael H. (1977) “Impeaching the Professional Expert Witness by Showing of Financial Interest” Indiana
Law Journal. Vol. 53 Iss. 1, Art. 2.
2
Section 161, Evidence Act CAP 80.
3
Section 163, Evidence Act CAP 80.
4
Metavante Corp-v-Emigrant SAV. Bank, 619 F. 3d 748, 762 (7 th Cir 2010).
5
Jules Epstein; Advocacy and Evidence Resources. Temple University Beasley School of Law.
https://www2.law.temple.edu/aer/impeaching-the-opposing-expert/. Retrieved September 24, 2020
procedure by challenging the credentials, standards of qualifications of the witness and the court
shall determine whether the witness has any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on
the subject matter under investigation6.

On the basis of qualifications, the attorney should be able to mark items on a checklist for a
successful impeachment; to show that the expert witness has in fact, limited practical experience
or specialization in the field, to show that the expert witness has missing credentials such as lack
of a significant certificate in the field and overly inflated credentials7.

In the process of questioning the expert witness for purposes of impeaching his credibility, the
attorney must consider whether the expert has utilized elements involving practicalities of his
opinions and statements before the court or lack of it, whether the expert witness has expert peer
reviews and acknowledged and referenced publications or lack of it, whether there is a general
acceptance or lack thereof of the expert witness’ opinion and whether there are testable and
implementable practical standards that are put in place for the experts in that field of expertise8.

6
ibid
7
ibid
8
ibid