When “Expert” Doesn’t Mean Experienced - Why a Low Bar to Testify Demands High Discipline—and What Happens When It Doesn’t

I once testified in a trial where the defense presented a so-called expert in cellular analysis. On paper, the witness met the minimum threshold to testify. Under the Rules of Evidence, that was enough.

Under examination, however, the reality of the expert’s qualifications became clear.

The witness admitted that all formal training consisted of online courses in cellular forensics. When asked about experience analyzing cellular records in real-world investigations, the expert acknowledged that this experience came primarily from watching FBI CAST agents testify in court.

The expert had never used cellular records to locate a missing person, track a fugitive, or assist in the recovery of a missing child. He had never conducted a drive test. He could not explain the underlying science of cellular radio communications, network design, or RF behavior. All experience with cellular records existed behind a computer screen, not in the environments where those records are generated, tested, and relied upon.

The testimony was admissible.Its credibility was another matter entirely.

That case illustrates a growing problem in modern litigation: the confusion of admissibility with actual expertise.

A Low Bar—By Design

Under the Rules of Evidence, an expert with “specialized knowledge” may testify. It is a low bar, and it was meant to be, because the rules are designed to favor access and fairness over credential gatekeeping, allowing courts to hear potentially helpful expertise without turning judges into arbiters of professional qualifications.

Courts are not licensing bodies. Judges are not tasked with ranking experts or deciding who is the “best” in a field.

The rules answer a narrow procedural question: may this witness testify?

They do not answer the more important substantive question: should this testimony be relied upon?

That distinction is intentional.

A Floor, Not a Benchmark

The evidentiary framework separates admissibility from weight. Once a witness clears the minimal threshold, credibility is left to cross-examination, competing experts, and ultimately the factfinder.

This structure assumes something critical:that experts will respect the boundaries of their own expertise.

When that assumption holds, the system works.When it does not, the system strains.

The Proliferation of “Course-Certified” Experts

In technical disciplines, particularly those involving digital and cellular evidence, courts are increasingly encountering experts whose qualifications consist largely of:

• Online courses

• Short-form certifications

• Vendor-neutral training

• Limited exposure to curated datasets

Education matters. Training matters. But training alone does not create expertise.

Coursework introduces concepts. It does not replicate the complexity, ambiguity, and failure modes encountered in real-world analysis. Familiarity with terminology is not the same as understanding how cellular systems behave when data is incomplete, contradictory, or affected by real-world conditions.

Exposure is not experience.

The More Serious Problem: The Cross-Over Expert

More troubling than minimally trained experts is the rise of the cross-over expert—individuals with legitimate credentials in one technical discipline who assume that credibility transfers wholesale into adjacent fields.

This assumption is common. It is also wrong.

Experience in mobile device forensics does not automatically confer expertise in:

• Cellular network behavior

• Carrier records analysis

• Radio-frequency propagation

• Timing Advance interpretation

• Sectorization and network design

These are distinct disciplines, governed by different data sources, methodologies, and limitations.

Too often, the result is an expert who claims to be a master of everything—and is, in reality, a master of none.

Breadth without depth is not versatility. It is risk.

No one would assign a patrol officer to lead a homicide investigation simply because they attended a major crimes course. The same logic applies to expert testimony.

Why This Matters in the Courtroom

Jurors lack the technical background to distinguish deep expertise from surface familiarity. Once a witness is introduced as an “expert,” there is a natural tendency to assume comprehensive mastery.

Cross-examination may expose the gaps; but by then, the testimony has already shaped the narrative.

The downstream risks are real:

• Overconfident, overbroad opinions

• False equivalence between competing experts

• Hidden vulnerabilities exposed too late

• Appellate issues rooted in unreliable testimony

The low bar works only when experts police themselves. When they do not, the system relies too heavily on cross-examination to fix problems that should never have existed.

Qualified Is Not the Same as Credible

Admissibility is procedural. Credibility is substantive.

A disciplined expert understands:

• What their data can support

• What it cannot

• Where reasonable disagreement ends

• Where speculation begins

They know when to say “I don’t know,” and when not to stretch conclusions to fit a theory.

That discipline, not credentials alone, is what survives cross-examination.

Where Precision Cellular Analysis Is Different

At Precision Cellular Analysis, expertise is not defined by course completion or assumed cross-over credibility. Our opinions are grounded in years of real-world cellular records analysis, first-hand operational experience, and primary-source understanding of how carrier networks actually function.

We respect the difference between admissibility and credibility, and we stay in our lane.

That discipline is not a marketing position.It is a professional obligation.

Closing Thought

The low bar for expert testimony is necessary. It promotes access, fairness, and flexibility in an adversarial system.

But it becomes dangerous when clearing the bar is mistaken for clearing the standard.

In technical testimony, the difference between qualified and credible is not academic. It determines whether expert evidence illuminates the truth—or obscures it.

About the Author

Kevin R. Horan is a retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent with more than two decades of experience in complex criminal investigations, including extensive work involving cellular records and location-based evidence. He previously served with the FBI’s Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST) and has testified as an expert witness in state and federal courts.

Mr. Horan is the co-founder of Precision Cellular Analysis (PCA), where he provides cellular records analysis, expert consultation, and testimony in criminal, civil, and administrative matters nationwide. His work focuses on the proper interpretation and limitations of carrier records, network behavior, and location data, with an emphasis on methodological discipline and courtroom reliability.