Practice question
A witness offers a sanity opinion about someone sufficiently acquainted with the witness, but admits no knowledge of a separate technical chemical issue. Counsel argues familiarity with the person qualifies every specialized chemical conclusion too. Which is correct?
- One ordinary opinion qualifies the witness in all sciences
- The foundations are matter-specific; personal familiarity does not supply unrelated expertise
- Sanity familiarity automatically establishes chemistry expertise
- Only the witness’s confidence matters
- All opinions are equally admissible once one is received
Legal references
- A.M.19-08-15-SC, current Rule130 Sections25–36,51–53 and Rule128 Sections3–4: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.