2003-03-25 TBLASMAN0328 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GIFFIN:Mikahala? ROY:Thank you and just the last question -. IÓm uneasy about whether later he would be termed an expert and being able to be called an expert, say, a gentleman such as going to be testifying at the moment. So IÓd rather discuss it at the outset. TORIGOE:I donÓt know if the parties have any leaning on this. I know it seems that at least the Intervenor and Ms. Roy would like to see some form of expert recognition. I guess if the parties would like to stipulate to have some form of expert recognition as part of a Contested Case procedure, we could do that. Is there any feeling? GIFFIN:Mr. Vitousek? VITOUSEK:Yeah, I mean, I think that the procedure that Mr. Torig with, which was that people be allowed to express opinions, subject to cross-examination by other parties and subject to the hearings officers being able to determine on, by whatever criteria they apply the weight that theyÓre going to give to the testimony, is fair and equal. So thatÓs fine with me. As a practical approach, thatÓs probably the best one. As you know IÓm comfortable offering someone as expert witness and establishing their credentials and cross-examining somebody elseÓs credentials. But I think that Mr. Torigoe is trying to avoid this becoming overly legalistic and -. GIFFIN:Oh, I understand that and I appreciate that. VITOUSEK:And I think thatÓs a good point. GIFFIN:Right, right. VITOUSEK:So as long as we understand that whether testimony is, you know, characterized as something they saw or heard, or an opinion, that it comes in, subject to cross-examination, thatÓs fine with me. GIFFIN:And without the formal designation -? VITOUSEK:Without the formal -. GIFFIN:On our part of accepting that individual as an expert? VITOUSEK:Yes. GIFFIN:Thank you. VITOUSEK:You know, but, on the other hand if itÓs going to made an issue by another party, then we want to make sure we comply with whateverÓs required. 10