Top Law Schools

Can’t cross-examine an expert witness, unless you depose them.

Where is this in the rules?

Read this and it made me curious so I tried to see if I could find anything and couldn't. The closest thing I could find was a statement in a case that said something like, since the elimination of foundation foundation often provided by a hypothetical question, pre-trial discovery of expert witness' basis for his opinion is essential for effective cross-examination. This was referring to FRCP 26, FRE 705 and committee note, and 28 U.S.C.

But nothing explicitly states in the rules that I found, or through any supreme court cases that says you HAVE to depose an expert to cross examine him/her. It seems like it's more of a duty to the client than anything. But that's as close as I could find. But I didn't spend much time looking either. haha

Who told you this? Seems more like a prof. resp. issue than an evidence rules issue.

You probably can't develop a good cross unless you have deposed them, but I don't think you'd be barred from trying.

No, that's crazy and there's no such rule.

I don't know of any such rule.

nvm . . . I was thinking of 26(b)(4)(A)