California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Snow, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 30 Cal.4th 43, 65 P.3d 749 (Cal. 2003):
According to defendant, the court's ruling "prevented the jury from fully evaluating the witness's overall expertise and his familiarity with the particular testing equipment which he used." Schliebe, however, was extensively cross-examined on those topics both before and after the complained of ruling. Defendant was not constitutionally entitled to ask the expert how a test the expert did not do would have been done had he done it; even the expert's confession of ignorance as to how such a test is done would not have discredited his data and conclusions as to the analyses he did perform. (See People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 531-532, 262 Cal.Rptr. 1, 778 P.2d 129 [expert may be cross-examined on the reasons for his opinion, and on certain relevant material that the expert failed to consider in reaching his opinion, but not on matters irrelevant to the import or credibility of his opinion].)
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.