Rule 706. Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses

(a) Appointment process. On a party's motion or on its own, the court may order the parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its own choosing. But the court may only appoint someone who consents to act.

(b) Expert's role. The court must inform the expert of the expert's duties. The court may do so in writing and have a copy filed with the clerk or may do so orally at a conference in which the parties have an opportunity to participate. The expert:

(1) Must advise the parties of any findings the expert makes;

(2) May be deposed by any party;

(3) May be called to testify by the court or any party; and

(4) May be cross-examined by any party, including the party that called the expert.

(c) Compensation. The expert is entitled to reasonable compensation, as set by the court. Unless provided otherwise by law, the parties must pay the expert's compensation in whatever proportion the court directs, at a time chosen by the court. Thereafter, the expert's compensation may be charged in the same manner as other costs.

(d) Disclosing the appointment to the jury. The court may authorize disclosure to the jury that the court appointed the expert.

(e) Parties' choice of their own experts. This rule does not limit a party in calling its own experts.

Committee Notes

Maine Restyling Note [November 2014] Maine Rule of Evidence 706 is similar to its federal counterpart. The Maine Rule sets forth a different procedure for assigning the costs for compensation of the expert witness. This difference was carried over in the restyled Rule.

Federal Restyling Committee Note The language of Rule 706 has been amended as part of the 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.

Advisers' Note to former M.R. Evid. 706 (February 2, 1976) Court-appointed experts are provided for in M.R. Crim. P. 28(a). There is no broad statutory provision or rule for such appointments in civil cases. Under 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 277-279, added by P.L. 1967, c. 325, § 2, the court may in paternity cases appoint qualified experts to perform blood tests. The experts are to be called as court witnesses, subject to cross-examination, and to be paid as the court orders. This rule generalizes the procedures under the statute. This rule is identical to the Federal Rule. Although it recognizes that the power of the trial judge to appoint an expert of his own choosing should exist, the Court shares the view of the Advisory Committee that exercise of power in civil cases should be resorted to only in exceptional situations. The Committee said: "In any jury case the opinion of an expert known to be courtappointed and hence presumably impartial would almost surely be given decisive weight. In a case tried without jury the judge who selected the expert could scarcely be expected by the parties not to adopt his opinion. The use of a court-appointed expert in personal injury cases seems especially unwise. The Committee recommends the rule in this form because it could not devise any satisfactory limitation to prevent potential abuse." ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY