Skip to main content

View Diary: Boston Globe: Romney Lied Under Oath In 1991 (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Was he an expert witness? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster

    It would seem unlikely since he wasn't independent. Not sure what it would be called in MA, precipient witness? Person most knowledgeable? "Expert" would require probably require independence, which as a principle of the company he couldn't possible have, the other two maybe not.

    •  Looks like he's not an expert witness, per se, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but they do at times qualify him as such and go over his background, blahblahblah.

    •  "Experts" are not necessarily "independent" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Neuroptimalian, nextstep

      as a practical matter.  Remember, experts are typically paid by, and offered as witnesses for, a party in the litigation precisely because the testimony the witness will give is favorable to that party.  Typically, each side has its own expert, and the experts contradict each other.  So, it may be that she had an expert who said something different.  

      •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But theoretically, they are still presenting an idependent opinion. They are hired by advocates, but they are not participants in the case. They have no financial interest in the outcome other than than the fees they charge irrespective of the outcome. Romney probably wasn't paid for the testimony. And in any case, as a former owner of the company in question, he would be disqualified as an expert. It's semantics, but he was probably some other sort of witness.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site