Posted By:
Dave GrobI think most would agree with this language as far as what might qualify a person to be an expert. A number of states seem to ground their standards on something at least simular to this:
(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and;
(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
As with most things, they need to be considered within the context of how they are offered and presented. The sports memoribilla field will never be "CSI Bats" or "CSI Jerseys." What I would offer for consideration are these standards of applicibility for this definition:
(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;
This could be addressed when the person states how the item compares specifically with other known examples. This is use of "data". The person making the claim should be expected to articulate the basis for or provide that data.
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and;
I think all that collectors want to know is there was some process they can follow, understand, and verify for themselves. Nothing more than showing your work. Sort of like loosing points in a math class when you come up with the right answer, but don't show your work.
(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
This is nothing more than a than a codifiaction of the requirements of 1 and 2. Did you use the informtion and the process you should have.