You said: “ The judge in the hearing cut short the cross examination of Mr. Irey (unheard of in normal court proceedings) and ended the hearing. Judge Reid shortly after that dismissed the case and all of the testimony from the hearing was stricken from the record.”
What did the judge give as his reason or legal justification for these “unheard of” actions of his?
She gave her rationale in her opinion.
“Mr. Irey, over the objections of the State Defendants, was found to be an expert in type-setting only and was accepted as an expert on that topic only. See also Hannan v. Pest Control Services, Inc. 734 N.E. 2d. 674, 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (an expert in one field of expertise cannot offer opinion in other fields absent a requisite showing of competency in that field”). Further, plaintiffs offered no evidence that the principles upon which he was testifying are reliable or used by others in the field or peer reviewed in any way, shape, or form. See Ind. R. Evid. 702(b) (expert testimony only admissible where the proponent demonstrates that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rest are reliable”); Steward v. State, 652 N. E. 2d 490, 498 (Ind. 1995).”
Judge Reid later writes,
“Plaintiffs provided no competent expert opinions as to the authenticity of President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth. See Ind. R. Evid. 702(b) (expert testimony only admissible where the proponent demonstrates that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rest are reliable”); Steward v. State, 652 N. E. 2d 490, 498 (Ind. 1995).7”
Footnote 7:
“At most, Mr. Irey’s admissible testimony is that he reviewed a copy of what had been downloaded from the White House site and that within that single document he noticed differences between the sizes of some of the letters, difference of spacing between some of the letters, and a while “haloing” around certain letters. It is unclear whether “expert” testimony was needed for such observations. All other testimony provided by Mr. Irey, however, is hearsay, irrelevant, not based on personal knowledge, and not scientifically reliable; thus it is inadmissible. Ind. R. Evid. 401, 402, 602, 702(b), 802, 805. As for the demonstrative summaries he presented, again, these were admitted for a limited purpose and do not prove that the Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery or that President Obama is not constitutionally qualified for office.”
I assume that during cross examination Judge Reid had heard enough and there was little in Irey’s testimony that was admissible.