§ 90.706, Fla. Stat. — Authoritativeness of Literature for Cross-Examination
Plain English
This is how you use the experts’ own books against them. On cross-examination, you can confront an expert with statements from a published treatise, periodical, book, or other writing — if the expert recognizes it as authoritative, or, even if the expert refuses to, if the court finds the work authoritative and relevant. It’s a powerful impeachment tool: you make the expert defend their opinion against the recognized literature in their own field.
From the Courtroom
The trap experts set for themselves is refusing to call anything “authoritative,” hoping to dodge being cross-examined with it. 90.706 closes that escape hatch — if the expert won’t concede it, the court can still find the treatise authoritative. The most memorable cross-examinations turn the witness’s own field against them, in their own words.
Key Points & Authority
- § 90.706, Fla. Stat. — Authoritative published literature may be used in cross-examination of an expert if the expert recognizes it as authoritative, or if the court finds it authoritative and relevant.
- Use is limited to cross-examination (impeachment), not as substantive proof in the proponent’s case-in-chief.
- Federal parallel: the closest federal provision is Fed. R. Evid. 803(18), the learned-treatise hearsay exception, which (unlike Florida) can also admit treatise statements substantively when an expert relies on or is confronted with them.
Federal Parallel
The closest federal counterpart is Fed. R. Evid. 803(18), the learned-treatise hearsay exception. A key difference: the federal rule allows qualifying treatise statements to be read into evidence substantively (not just for impeachment), while Florida’s § 90.706 is framed around use in cross-examination.
About this rule walkthrough
Part of The Evidence Code, hosted by John M. Phillips — Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, Court TV analyst, admitted in 8 states + 9 federal districts + SCOTUS.
Free consultation: (904) 444-4444 · About John Phillips
Educational only — not legal advice.
Rule Text (verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court)
Statements of facts or opinions on a subject of science, art, or specialized knowledge contained in a published treatise, periodical, book, dissertation, pamphlet, or other writing may be used in cross-examination of an expert witness if the expert witness recognizes the author or the treatise, periodical, book, dissertation, pamphlet, or other writing to be authoritative, or, notwithstanding nonrecognition by the expert witness, if the trial court finds the author or the treatise, periodical, book, dissertation, pamphlet, or other writing to be authoritative and relevant to the subject matter.
Educational reference. Educational only — not legal advice.
What this rule means in plain English
Section 90.706 permits using authoritative published literature to cross-examine an expert if the expert recognizes it as authoritative, or if the court finds it authoritative and relevant.