the different policy interests underlying witness immunity, noted: With no sanction for incompetent preparation, however, an expert witness is free to prepare and testify without regard to the accuracy of his data or opinion. We do not see how the freedom to testify negligently will result in more truthful expert testimony. Without some overarching purpose, it would be illogical, if not unconscionable, to shield a professional, who is otherwise held to the standards and duties of his or her profession, from liability for his or her malpractice simply because a party to a judicial proceeding has engaged that professional to provide services in relation to the judicial proceeding and that professional testifies by affidavit or deposition. Marrogi v. Howard, 805 So.2d 1118, 1133 (La.2002) (<HOLDING>). Many courts, of course, have been
holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding the expert witnesses were protected by witness immunity to ensure expert objectivity holding that witness immunity does not bar a claim against a retained expert witness for negligence performance of his duty holding that a forensic accountant is an expert witness not a lay witness holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand