During a personal injury trial, a bystander testified that they saw the accident and said, "The driver looked like they were drunk given the way they were swerving and how they got out of the car." The attorney for the driver objects, claiming the testimony is improper. How should the court rule?
The court should admit the testimony because lay witnesses can share observations about behavior they personally observed.
The testimony should be excluded because determining whether the driver was intoxicated requires an expert witness to make such conclusions.
The testimony should be admitted if the observations of swerving and behavior are helpful to the jury and do not draw on specialized knowledge.
The testimony is admissible if the bystander has substantial training or experience in recognizing intoxication.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, lay witnesses can provide opinions based on perceptions from their own senses if those opinions are helpful to understanding a fact in issue and do not require specialized knowledge. Observations of behavior, such as swerving or unsteadiness, are within the range of common knowledge, making them appropriate for lay testimony. However, a statement directly concluding that a driver was intoxicated ventures into the realm of expert testimony, as such a conclusion would rely on specialized knowledge about how alcohol affects individuals. Incorrect options impose unnecessary conditions, like requiring specific training or allowing testimony without any restrictions, which misrepresent the balance struck by Rule 701.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is Federal Rule of Evidence 701?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What constitutes specialized knowledge in a legal context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why can lay witnesses talk about observable behavior in court?