California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Smith, 216 Cal.Rptr. 98, 38 Cal.3d 945, 702 P.2d 180 (Cal. 1985):
C. Appointment of Experts. Defendant cites two instances of the judge's refusal to appoint an expert and argues that those refusals were abuses of discretion. Defendant bases his claims of error on Evidence Code section 730 which provides in relevant part, "When it appears to the court, ... that expert evidence is or may be required ... the court ... may appoint one or more experts to investigate, to render a report as may be ordered by the court, and to testify as an expert ... relative to the fact or matter as to which such expert evidence is or may be required." First, defendant moved for the appointment of a legal research firm to assist him in preparing his legal arguments, which request the court properly denied. As we noted in People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 758, 79 Cal.Rptr. 529, 457 P.2d 321: "[A defendant] is not entitled to special privileges not given an attorney, and the judge ordinarily is not required to assist or advise him on matters of law, evidence or trial practice. [Citations.]" Further, it is clear from the language of Evidence Code section 730 that a legal research firm would not be an expert. Section 730 speaks to the situation where expert evidence is or may be required and where the expert may testify regarding such evidence. No amount of legal research would produce evidence--that is, "testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact." (Evid.Code, 140.) Accordingly, defendant's reliance on Evidence Code section 730 is misplaced.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.