Rule 706. ?Court-AppointedExperts.
(a) Appointment Process. On a party?s motion or on its own, the court mayorder the parties to show cause why expert witnessesshould not be appointed and may ask the parties to submit nominations. Thecourt may appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its ownchoosing. 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 doso orally at a conference in which the parties have an opportunity toparticipate. The expert:
(b)(1) must advise the partiesof any findings the expert makes;
(b)(2) may be deposed by anyparty;
(b)(3) may be called totestify by the court or any party; and
(b)(4) may be cross-examinedby any party, including the party that called the expert.
(c) Compensation. The expert is entitled to a reasonable compensation, asset by the court. The compensation is payable as follows:
(c)(1) in a criminal case orin a civil case involving just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, from anyfunds that are provided by law; and
(c)(2) in any other civilcase, by the parties in the proportion and at the time that the court directs ?and the compensation is then charged like other costs.
2011 Advisory Committee Note. ?The language of this rule has been amended as part of therestyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to makestyle and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes areintended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any rulingon evidence admissibility. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim.
Original Advisory Committee Note. ?This rule is the federal rule, verbatim. Rules 59-61 of theUniform Rules of Evidence (1953), on which the Utah Rules of Evidence (1971)were patterned, provided for the appointment, compensation and handling ofappointed expert witness testimony. These rules were not adopted in the stateof Utah. The reason for the rejection is unknown. However, the Utah SupremeCourt has previously indicated that a trial judge has inherent authority tocall a witness. Merchants Bank v. Goodfellow,44 Utah 349, 140 P. 759 (1914).