That's what I thought. I just wanted to be clear. You may well know this already, but in order to be able to testify in a court proceeding for the prosecution (ditto for the defense) you have to qualify as an expert. That is, the prosecution has to lay a foundation that would demonstrate to the court that the background, training, and knowledge which you have rise to such a level that you would have special knowledge in the area. Your opinions in your area of expertise would be accorded more weight than others lacking your credentials.
The prosecutor would have to lay out your skills and accomplishments in the area, the extent of your work in the field, the publications you may have written, other cases you may have worked on, and so forth. Following that, the defense attorney could either stipulate to your expertise or attempt to challenge it by cross-examining you. Section 240.45
requires that the prosecution disclose to the defense the existence of "a record of judgment of conviction of a witness the people intend to call at trial if the record of conviction is known by the prosecutor to exist."
That may or may not get in the way of your being useful to the prosecution. Where it may not go directly to the issue of your expertise, some types of offense would presumptively affect your credibility. (If your conviction were for fraud or perjury, for example).
If I've helped, please click the green Accept button so I can get credit for my work.
This thread will not close and you can always use it to get clarification.This is informational only and is NOT legal advice.