Mr. Irey was accepted as an expert witness on typesetting.
I covered this at length in two previous posts.
If the presenting attorney does an adequate job of establishing that the witness has expertise in some field, he may be asked questions pertaining to that expertise, as opposed to a lay witness who may only testify about what he rationally perceived by means of his five senses. This occurred in Irey's case; Taitz was permitted to ask him questions pertaining to typesetting.
However, the subsequent testimony must still satisfy the rest of the rules that pertain to expert testimony. Those rules cannot be applied until the testimony is actually rendered, whereupon the trier of fact may conclude after the fact whether the testimony was appropriate. This did not occur in Irey's case; the trier of fact rejected his testimony.
You and Taitz seem to have this odd fantasy that expert witnesses are somehow blessed by the court, whereafter everything they say is some sort of gospel. Neither of you understands the law, and in your case this deficiency goes all the way back to your abandoned JFK thread where you dismissed the federal rules of expert testimony as "just [my] opinion." You cannot stomp and whine when judges dismiss your cases if you flagrantly disregard the applicable laws. Neither of you understands that the ultimate acceptance of expert testimony occurs at the
end of the trial, not when the testimony is given.
Judge Reid, after reviewing Irey's testimony, concluded that it failed to meet two important criteria of expert testimony: 1. that the witness testify within the scope of his expertise, and 2. that the witness base his conclusions on sound and acceptable methodologies. Reid found that Irey failed to do both of those. He testified instead on the forensic authentication of documents, and he simply made up a method that he said would tell real copies from fake. Hence Irey's testimony was found to be inapplicable and was stricken.
Learn how the law works.
If he had been allowed do view the original, he could have testified as to a comparison of the type faces and spacings.
No. First, your claim is supposition. You have no idea what Irey would or would not have done.
Second, the question under cross examination showed that Irey was instead working on convenience copies of the certificate. Instead Irey purported that he could determined the validity of the document from this convenience source. The defense attorneys simply helped him step into the gaping hole in his method.
Your sweeping denial of the court's acceptance of his expertise is false.
No, the court ultimately
rejected his expertise as unfounded an irrelevant! Did you even read the ruling, Robert?
I gave a lengthy legal analysis here, and a lengthy technical analysis in the moderated thread. You were absent from both of those, apparently scouring the supermarket tabloids for your next arguments. If you'd now like to address the subject, answer those posts.
