http://leethomason.com/?p=122 A weblawg for Innovative Strategies In IP, etc. Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:18:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 http://leethomason.com/?p=122#comment-2153 Steve Mahle Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:40:16 +0000 http://leethomason.com/?p=122#comment-2153 I don't think this is unique to the District of Delaware. It is the majority rule in US federal courts, and I think most state courts. The law is the province of the judge and whether in a bench or a jury trial, the testimony of experts on the law is (almost) presumptively inadmissible. There are scarce exceptions, such as in the case of experts on foreign law, but the caselaw is otherwise as consistent as any area of expert testimony. One state court recently excluded a recently retired chief justice of that state's supreme court when the ex-Chief was proffered as an expert on the law. Of course, this comment carries the asterisk that in all areas of expert testimony, courts regularly err, so there are stray cases where legal experts have been admitted. I don’t think this is unique to the District of Delaware. It is the majority rule in US federal courts, and I think most state courts. The law is the province of the judge and whether in a bench or a jury trial, the testimony of experts on the law is (almost) presumptively inadmissible. There are scarce exceptions, such as in the case of experts on foreign law, but the caselaw is otherwise as consistent as any area of expert testimony. One state court recently excluded a recently retired chief justice of that state’s supreme court when the ex-Chief was proffered as an expert on the law. Of course, this comment carries the asterisk that in all areas of expert testimony, courts regularly err, so there are stray cases where legal experts have been admitted.

]]>