>Defense's use of force expert sides with defense. Yes. HOWEVER. In criminal court how it works is there's a separate hearing in which both sides get to test the credibility and ask questions of the expert. This is then used to validate the expert as an expert. In which case at trial it's basically set in stone that this expert is an expert. I forget what these hearings are called, they're brought up in Rittenhouse's last hearing when this is brought up specifically (scheduling these hearings). e; Daubert challenge ee; >The term is derived from the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Daubert standard, based upon the decision reached by the Court in that case, provides criteria by which the trial judge may make a preliminary assessment of the admissibility of expert testimony presented in United States federal (and most state) legal proceedings. This decision is based on the validity of the methodology and scientific reasoning employed by the expert witness and whether this evidence can be appropriately applied to the facts of the case at issue. https://www.gossmanforensics.com/pdf-library/pdf-glossary/daub.pdf