In Multnomah County Public Library et al., vs. United States of America, et al. (an ACLU challenge to the Children’s Internet Protection Act), I prepared an expert report, then was offered as an expert for oral testimony. Counsel for the United States of America challenged my credentials, remarking on my youth and lack of relevant credentials. The United States’ challenge was overruled.
The voir dire challenge of my designation as an expert:
Q Mr. Edelman, the highest academic degree that currently hold is a high school diploma, isn’t that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q The undergraduate degree that you expect to receive in June of this year is the only undergraduate degree that you will hold when you receive it, isn’t that right?
A That’s correct.
Q And that undergraduate degree that you have yet to receive that you will receive in June of 200 will be in economics, is that correct?
A I will in June of 2002 receive a undergraduate degree in economics, that’s correct.
Q And you will not receive any degree in computer sciences, is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q You don’t belong to any professional associations currently, is that right?
A That’s correct.
Q And you currently hold no professional licenses, is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q You have not published any articles in any scholarly journals, is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And you have not published any peer reviewed articles of any kind is that correct?
A That’s correct.
JUDGE BARTLE: He may have no peers.
Q You testified that you spent nine years doing consulting for various organizations, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And you began that consulting while you were still in junior high school, isn’t that right?
A That’s correct.
Q You currently other than the teaching responsibilities that you have at Harvard College you don’t hold as formal teaching appointment, do you?
A I do not.
Q You also testified that you previously given testimony in Federal Court, is that right?
A Yes.
Q On one occasion you testified before an Federal District Court, is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q You were not deposed for purposes of that testimony were you?
A I was not.
BHATTACHARYYA: I render my objection, Your Honors, to the qualifications of this witness as an expert under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Remarks by the three-judge panel in qualifying me as an expert:
JUDGE BECKER: Well, I would observe that some of the great figures in history have been autodidacts could spend a half a morning listening to all of the autodidacts.
[Rule] 702 says that it’s scientific technical or otherwise specialized knowledge, assist in the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In other words the helpfulness standard. A witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion. That’s the applicable standard.
I know how I’m prepared to rule. Judge Fullam?
JUDGE FULLAM: I have two reasons for ruling the same way. One is that we waited just so we could hear this witness, and I think that would be a terrible waste.
The other is that I happen to on occasion rely upon my six year old grandchild for advice on the internet and computer.
JUDGE BECKER: Okay. Ms. Bhattacharyya, your objection is overruled. Mr. Edelman is qualified to give expert testimony.