Print Version
Previous PageFile uploaded: 4/4/2012

Rule 706. Court-Appointed Experts


(a)      AppointmentProcess. On a party’s motion or on its own, the court may order the partiesto show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the partiesto submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the parties agreeon and any of its own choosing. But the court may only appoint someone whoconsents to act.


(b)      Expert’sRole. The court must inform the expert of the expert’s duties. The courtmay do so in writing and have a copy filed with the clerk or may do so orallyat a conference in which the parties have an opportunity to participate. Theexpert:


(1)   mustadvise the parties of any findings the expert makes;


(2)   may bedeposed by any party;


(3)   may becalled to testify by the court or any party; and


(4)   may becross-examined by any party, including the party that called the expert.


(c)      Compensation.The expert is entitled to a reasonable compensation, as set by the court. Thecompensation is payable as follows:


(1)   in acriminal case or in a civil case involving just compensation under the FifthAmendment, from any funds that are provided by law; and


(2)   in anyother civil case, by the parties in the proportion and at the time that thecourt directs — and the compensation is then charged like other costs.



2011 Advisory CommitteeNote. – Thelanguage of this rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the EvidenceRules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminologyconsistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylisticonly. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidenceadmissibility. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim.




This rule isthe federal rule, verbatim. Rules 59-61 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence(1953), on which the Utah Rules of Evidence (1971) were patterned, provided forthe appointment, compensation and handling of appointed expert witnesstestimony. These rules were not adopted in the state of Utah. The reason forthe rejection is unknown. However, the Utah Supreme Court has previouslyindicated that a trial judge has inherent authority to call a witness.Merchants Bank v. Goodfellow, 44 Utah 349, 140 P. 759(1914).