hap0206, You should not have omitted key words, eh. I'd wager it's common practice for judges to direct that expert witness can only testify on the facts, not on the law:
Myth: Justice Juan Merchan violated Trump’s rights to defend himself by refusing to permit him to call an expert witness.
Response: In Trump’s defense, he wanted to call Brad Smith, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, as an expert witness on federal election law. Expert witnesses are permitted to testify in trials to assist the jury in understanding facts about matters beyond ordinary understanding. Matters of law, in contrast, are for the judge to provide.
Justice Merchan did not prohibit Smith from testifying, but when he ruled that he could testify only about facts, and not law, Trump’s team decided not to call him as a witness. Contrary to this myth, Justice Merchan would have erred if he had permitted Trump to call an expert witness to testify about the law.
And, without implying anything untoward about Smith you, having been in court, would know that certain expert witnesses do have suspect records. Again that's a general comment, nothing to do with Smith.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
