In addition to and in conjunction with the investigating cases of fraud, forensic accountants (FAs) often function as expert witnesses in court settings in order to assist juries and judges interpret evidence and determine the truth of one or more issues. However, they are not always successful in this endeavor; judges often disallow FA testimony, in part or in whole. The problem of this study was to understand why judges are disallowing FA testimony at such a high rate; therefore, the purpose of this qualitative case study was to investigate the reasons why judges disallowed the expert testimony of forensic accountants by examining judicial views of FA competency. The case study involved qualitative content analysis (QCA) of the statements by judges pertaining to their rationales for disallowance, as well as interview data analysis. These statements were found in 44 federal and state cases from 2003 to 2015. In addition, 10 judges and two attorneys were interviewed. QCA and interview data analyses were compared. The results of the study suggest that judges consider deficiencies related to the following four types of forensic accountant competencies when disallowing FA expert testimony: (a) qualifications, (b) methodology, (c) legal domain, and (d) communication. When judges disallowed testimony, they addressed FA shortcomings in these four areas. The findings also suggest that researchers may want to explore further these dimensions of competency.
展开▼
