• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Expert evidence - police officer

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

civilrights1778

Junior Member
In the UK I often hear the reference to a 'trained' police officer being able to give evidence to the identification of cannabis. Apparently this evidence can be used in summary only proceedings where the defendant offers a plea of N.G. Is this true? if so how does the court get around the 'best evidence' rule? and how come this hasn't been challenged in the UK courts. It would seem to me that at the very best, without scientific analysis, the trained/experienced police officer can only say that it is probable that the substance is cannabis? I really would welcome your views/advice/experience...please! Thanks
 


Isis1

Senior Member
In the UK I often hear the reference to a 'trained' police officer being able to give evidence to the identification of cannabis. Apparently this evidence can be used in summary only proceedings where the defendant offers a plea of N.G. Is this true? if so how does the court get around the 'best evidence' rule? and how come this hasn't been challenged in the UK courts. It would seem to me that at the very best, without scientific analysis, the trained/experienced police officer can only say that it is probable that the substance is cannabis? I really would welcome your views/advice/experience...please! Thanks
er...US Law ONLY.
 

Silverplum

Senior Member
We only do US law on this site.

In the UK I often hear the reference to a 'trained' police officer being able to give evidence to the identification of cannabis. Apparently this evidence can be used in summary only proceedings where the defendant offers a plea of N.G. Is this true? if so how does the court get around the 'best evidence' rule? and how come this hasn't been challenged in the UK courts. It would seem to me that at the very best, without scientific analysis, the trained/experienced police officer can only say that it is probable that the substance is cannabis? I really would welcome your views/advice/experience...please! Thanks
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
OK...Thanks for the info.

What is the US legal stand on this? Anybody..?

Thanks
It depends on what is being testified to. Generally, the officer is allowed to offer his "expert" opinion based upon his training and experience. If marijuana was seized, it can easily be tested so if the defense challenges it, the defense can test it at their own expense ... or, they can argue that there is no proof that the substance is marijuana.

Likewise, an officer can testify to his training and experience and offer his expert opinion as to what it is.

It all depends on the purpose behind the testimony and whether the actual substance - the "best evidence" - is available.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top