Home › Mississippi › Rules of Evidence › Rule 705

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Miss. R. Evid. 705

Not legal advice. Verify against official sources before relying on this text in any legal matter.

Rule 705 Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert’s Opinion

Article VII: Opinions and Expert Testimony

← Previous Rule 704: Opinion on an Ultimate Issue Next → Rule 706: Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses

Rule Text

Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion – and give the reasons for it – without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.

[Restyled effective July 1, 2016.]

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.

When an expert witness testifies in court, they don't have to walk through all the background facts or data before sharing their opinion. They can just give their opinion and explain their reasoning, without first laying out everything they relied on to reach that conclusion. A judge can change this if needed, but this is how it normally works.

However, the other side gets a chance to dig into those details later. During cross-examination, the lawyer questioning the expert can ask them to explain exactly what facts or data they used to form their opinion. This gives both sides a fair shot: the expert can testify efficiently without a long setup, but opposing lawyers still get the chance to test the expert's reasoning and poke holes in it if they can.

This rule basically speeds up expert testimony while still protecting a person's right to challenge that testimony. It trusts that if an expert's opinion is based on weak facts or shaky data, the cross-examination will expose that. So instead of front-loading every detail, the process saves time upfront and puts the burden on the questioning attorney to bring out any weaknesses.

Committee Notes

Advisory Committee Historical Note

Effective July 1, 2016, the Rule was amended as part of the general restyling of the Evidence Rules.

Effective June 16, 2016, the “Comment” was retitled “Advisory Committee Note.”

Advisory Committee Note

The language of Rule 705 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility. All reference to an “inference” has been deleted, on the grounds that the deletion made the Rule flow better and easier to read, and because any “inference” is covered by the broader term “opinion.” Courts have not made substantive decisions on the basis of any distinction between an opinion and an inference. No change in current practice is intended.

Rule 705 is an attempt to eliminate the use of the hypothetical question or, at the least, reduce its use. The almost universal criticism of the hypothetical question is that it is unduly complex and time-consuming. While dispensing with the requirement of preliminary disclosure at the trial of underlying facts or data, Rule 705 nonetheless offers two protections. The court may, in its discretion, require disclosure. Regardless of whether it does, the expert may still be required to state the underlying facts on cross-examination.

[“Advisory Committee Note” substituted for “Comment,” effective June 16, 2016; amended July 1, 2016, to note restyling.]

← Previous Rule 704: Opinion on an Ultimate Issue Next → Rule 706: Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses