Court Opinion

ID: 9704275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:29:22.206579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:59.551000
License: Public Domain

HERTZ, Acting Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur specially in order to indicate that in my opinion expert witnesses should generally be excepted from the sequestration order, absent special and compelling circumstances.
In this case, at the State’s request, the trial court sequestered all witnesses, including the defendant’s fingerprint expert.
The State, as a basis for the sequestration order, claimed that by allowing defendant’s expert in the courtroom, it would permit him to testify as to areas of agreement or disagreement with the State’s expert testimony. But what is wrong with that? The issue in which the experts were to testify, was, “When was defendant’s fingerprint placed on the victim’s window?” Just how is defendant’s expert to intelligently respond to this issue without hearing the other’s testimony before the jury? The State’s expert may well have deviated from some of his findings and conclusions set out in his report previously furnished to defendant’s expert. Because of the highly technical nature of this kind of testimony, this deviation could go unchallenged where defendant’s counsel fails to discern the deviation or otherwise misconstrues it.
Under the circumstances of this case, however, it would appear that the defendant was not prejudiced by the sequestration order because both experts had exchanged and discussed their conclusions prior to trial. Further, if there in fact was any prejudice, it was harmless error in light of the entire record.
There is very little law on this particular subject. At 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1011 (1961) it is stated:
There is no absolute rule of law which requires the exemption of expert witnesses from the rule or order excluding witnesses from the courtroom. The matter is within the sound discretion of the trial court; in the exercise of this discretion such exemption may be made, and it has been stated broadly that ordinarily such witnesses are exempted.
It is also stated at 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial § 62 (1974) that “While it is usual to ... except expert witnesses from the operation of the [sequestration] rule, a refusal to do so does not necessarily constitute error.” This indicates that the civil rule is the same as the rule in criminal cases.
I write on this issue because I firmly believe the experts ought to be present during each other’s testimony, absent a compelling reason to the contrary. It is only in this way that the experts can intelli*10gently respond to the issue and assist the jury in the fact finding process.
I am hereby authorized to state that Chief Justice FOSHEIM joins in this special concurrence.