The testament will become discoverable

Denzil's lawyers are permitted to object to any of the matters that are raised in Dr Holmes' report. This is because the evidence that Dr Holmes is submitting to the court is evidence against the defendant and the job of the defence is to discredit any of the evidence that is called to the attention of the court. 'The expert witness's identity and nearly all documents used to prepare the testament will become discoverable.

Usually an experience lawyer will advise the expert not to take notes on documents because all of the notes will be available to the other party. ' {5} This means that because Dr Holmes is testify the evidence against the defendant any notes she has made even if it was not to be mentioned in her testimony because it may have contradicted her findings is available to the defence party and can be used to cross-examine her, and may result in the evidence being discredited because it is inconclusive.

In her report Dr Holmes has used a percentage to report the incidences of the glass fragments that were found at the crime scene matching the fragments that were found on Denzil's person. In the court of law percentages are not always a credible way of presenting evidence for the court. From some points of view percentages are like opinions and are not always correct and precise.

As it was mentioned in question two about the standard of proof, although Dr Holmes is sure and believes beyond reasonable doubt that the glass fragments found on Denzil's person are the matching to the glass fragments found at the scene of the crime, in the end this is only a prediction or a probability. And this evidence is not necessarily credible if it based on a probability. This is because there is the small percentage or probability that the glass fragment on Denzil did not come from the scene of the crime; it could have come from a different window.

However there is the possibility that even if the glass fragment on Denzil's clothing does match the ones at the crime, this does not necessarily mean that Denzil was the person who committed the crime of murdering Phoebe, he may have only broken the reason for some unforeseeable reason. Another fact about Dr Holmes' report which can be defence lawyers can object to is the fact that Dr Holmes concluded that the fragments on Denzil's clothing '"must beyond reasonable doubt have got there when he broke the window as he killed the deceased.

"' This can be objected to because it is not Dr Holmes' or any expert witnesses duty to concur that the victim actually committed the crime, they are not permitted to make statements such as these because this can be misleading for the jury, this may give the jury the view that because an "expert" has said that the defendant got those fragments on his clothing when breaking the window to kill the deceased then this must be true, because they are an expert and shouldn't make any mistakes.

However Dr Holmes could have made mistakes which could have lead her to believe that the fragments matched when they did not. Therefore if the jury convict the defendant based on the expert witness's evidence when the evidence is wrong then the defendant would be wrongly sentenced when he may be innocent.