BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Class Action and Other Litigation

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Wednesday, January 22, 2020

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will educate counsel as to the nuances of Federal Rule of Evidence 701, which attempts to define the parameters of admissible opinion evidence from lay witnesses. Trial lawyers who understand Rule 701 can use this powerful tool to expand the testimony of their own witnesses and restrict the testimony of opposing witnesses.

Faculty

Thomas A. Kantas
Attorney
Law Office of Thomas A. Kantas, PC

Mr. Kantas has worked on sophisticated auto collision cases, construction accidents, product liability litigation and medical malpractice cases. He has deposed hundreds of witnesses involved in serious personal injury cases. These included the following expert witnesses: physicians, toxicologists, accident reconstructionists and engineers. Mr. Kantas has also tried many successful civil cases before juries. 

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Jan I. Berlage
Partner
Gohn Hankey & Berlage, LLP

Mr. Berlage’s practice focuses on general business litigation ranging from commercial disputes to bankruptcy to intellectual property. His legal career spans over two decades and encompasses a wide variety of opportunities and experiences that have enriched his practice of law. Mr. Berlage's multifaceted career has seen him in court representing plaintiffs in wrongful death cases to helping clients resolve real estate and animal law disputes. He has extensive experience in trials, arbitrations, mediations, and administrative hearings, including arguments before the Maryland Court of Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

Rule 701's three-part test for the admissibility of lay opinion witnesses confounds even the most seasoned trial lawyers. When a witness offers an opinion, opposing counsel objects almost reflexively. Knowing how to respond to that objection can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

A lay witness may testify as to an opinion if the opinion is within the witness' perception, is helpful to the jury's understanding, and does not constitute expert testimony. Some opinions, such as "the car was going fast," can be easily placed within the confines of the rule. Business valuation, however, while seemingly within the rule, presents thorny issues regarding the future value, as opposed to present worth.

These tensions become even more evident when testimony admitted under the Rule is then used to support a contention that prohibits speculation, such as damages. In those instances, the interplay between Rule 701 and Rule 702 (expert opinions) is at the forefront.

Listen as this seasoned panel of trial lawyers examines the intricate ins and outs of Rule 701 and provides in-depth guidance to how it can be used to admit helpful and exclude harmful evidence.

Outline

  1. Separating opinion from fact testimony
  2. The requirements of Rule 701
    1. Rationally based on the witness' perception
    2. Helpful to clearly understanding the witness' testimony
    3. Helpful to clearly understanding or to determining a fact in issue
    4. Interplay with Rule 702
  3. Rule 701 opinions vs. imperssible speculation

Benefits

The panel will review these and other essential matters:

  • Situations in which lay witnesses can offer opinions
  • Advantages and disadvantages of lay opinion testimony
  • Technical aspects of admitting and excluding lay opinion testimony