MODERATOR O’BAN: Well, let me ask the prosecutor, why, what’s the nature of this witness’ testimony if it’s not expert testimony?(source)
STELLMAN: Well, he has read every single theological piece of literature or writing that Leithart has written. He’s read every single book, every single journal article, every single theological book I should say, every journal article. He probably has read as much of Dr. Leithart’s work as anyone else except perhaps Dr. Leithart himself. And so why his competence is called into question here is an answer I would like to hear.
MODERATOR O’BAN: No, I think the question more narrowly framed is in what capacity is this witness being called. He didn’t overhear a statement made by Dr. Leithart that no one else would know but for this witness and in that sense he would be a fact witness. It seems to me you’re calling him because he is conversant on Dr. Leithart’s theology through his writings
MODERATOR O’BAN: And you’re asking him not just simply to regurgitate those writings, but in fact to render and opinion on the nature of those writings vis-à-vis the standards. Correct?
MODERATOR O’BAN: Well, that, that is, I’ll just simply rule, is the capacity of an expert witness. So the question is, is he an expert witness that, it just simply may be that your witness doesn’t, didn’t understand maybe that fine distinction. So you’re calling him here as an expert witness, correct?
STELLMAN: Insofar as I understood what you just said. Yes.
The cross-examination of Stellman's witness, however, seems not to have gone as Stellman would have liked, in that the defense suggested that Stellman's witness was not particularly more expert in theology than anyone else in the presbytery before whom was testifying.
Now Stellman has post talking about how there are no expert witnesses in PCA courts (link to post). That is all well and good, and perhaps - after the fact - he is right. But what was he doing soliciting for contributions for a role that doesn't exist in the PCA? Why didn't he know that there are no expert witnesses in PCA courts during this trial that was so important that he flew what he then considered an "expert witness" to be a part of the trial? I thought Stellman was the prosecutor for the trial? Shouldn't he have familiarized himself with the rules of the PCA before the trial began?
It may not be a lost cause. Stellman's witness was really called as a fact witness - someone who had carefully read everything that Leithart wrote and could report on that. Stellman was simply outwitted by those sympathetic to Leithart in his own presbytery.
Whether or not Stellman knew the rules, the presbytery is charged with following the rules, and while the presbytery's error in discounting the testimony of a fact witness on grounds that are not really relevant to the fact witness's role may be in some sense an understandable error under the circumcstances, it is still an error.
One question that the presbytery needed to consider was whether Stellman's witness or the defense's witness had a better understanding of Leithart's teachings. While theologically training may not be entirely irrelevant to that question, having actually read what Leithart has written seems like a very important consideration, and Stellman's witness actually read what Leithart wrote.