The past controlling legal precedent regarding expert testimony Gardeley
To my understanding of how Sanchez operates within the realm of LPS Conservatorship, the first step would be to understand the case that Sanchez overruled. Sanchez overruled People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal. 4th 605, (1996). Gardeley mandated that the subject matter, ____, is a matter deemed sufficiently complex beyond that of the common experiences of lay witnesses. Only expert witnesses with special knowledge of ___ matter in question may qualify as expert witness. Expert witnesses under Gardeley may render an expert opinion based on information that is not admitted into evidence so long as that information is (1) material, (2) meets the reliable test, and (3) is the kind of information that experts routinely rely upon to render their opinions. The evidence code allows expert witnesses to state on direct the reasons for rendering said opinion and the information upon which they based their opinion. Expert witnesses under Gardeley can render an opinion based on inadmissible information should all these dispositive factors be met. Additionally, the California Supreme court added procedural safeguards against abuse of Gardeley’s findings. It opined that the trial court has considerable discretion to control the direct and cross of the expert witness to prevent the jury from hearing hearsay. The trial court must at the same time conduct a balancing test of whether the probative value of the expert’s inadmissible evidence outweighs the risk that jury might improperly hear and deem the expert’s statements about any inadmissible evidence as independent proof of a material fact. If all has been said and done the expert may render an opinion based on inadmissible hearsay.
This now brings us to People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal. 4th 665, 374 P.3d 320 (2016) which makes Gardeley now bad law.
Sanchez first addresses the 6th amendment confrontation clause which allows the use of testimonial hearsay when it is only offered for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted. The Sanchez court first address whether the expert relies on facts as the basis for their opinion. Given what the 6th amendment establishes, it would technically be within the limits of the Confrontation clause if the expert’s opinion based on facts dehors the record, are not hearsay Documents proffered in a trial may contain multiple levels of hearsay.
The application of Sanchez within the realm of LPS Conservatorship. The case of Conservatorship of K.W. Cal.App. 1 Dist. Cal.Rptr.3d 622.
Juvenile Dependency and