Should there be only one expert at trials?

[viper37]

Criminal or civil trials, everyone brings their expert.

In criminal trials, it often means you get two psychiatrists each saying the opposite.  The crown says he's sane, the defense says he was temporarily insane.  He was ok 15 minutes before killings his kids, he killed them, than 15 minutes later he was totally ok.

But you'll have the same issue in engineering.  Had a few case myself, where we managed to avoid trial (heck, a simple visible inspection and a few pictures did the trick, no more "pay us 30k or we sue".

Still, often, it's quite confusing for judge and jury.

It's been proposed, more than once, that the State could rely on a bank of specialists, from different fields.  How it would work, is that at trial, the parties could ask for an expert, than the judge presents the request to a professional order, wich assigns someone to the case.  Each parties get to ask questions, confirm if he's suitable, then they go to trial with his evaluation of the case.

Both parties are linked to that specialist report, meaning, once they accept him, they can't come back and discredit him later on.  The judge still has the right to hear from another specialist, if he feels the need to.

I feel this would make things better for our justice system, and instead of relying on people who change their reports depending on who pays them, you have someone more neutral, not working directly for one of the lawyers.

What do lawtalkers think?

[Sheilbh]

Criminal or civil trials, everyone brings their expert.

In English civil trials the court have to give permission for the use of expert evidence. They can say that none is needed, arrange to appoint a single joint expert, limit the numbers and frames of reference of experts for either party. If one party gets loads of expert opinions and the court then doesn't give them permission they generally can't recover those costs even if they win. Also the expert's may have been instructed by one party but they've got a duty to the court - here if they fail in that they can be reported to their own regulator and can be sued by their own party for negligence.

It's only allowed if it's reasonably required to resolve the issue.

My understanding is that as a rule if the area you're looking for evidence on is settled and two or more experts would give the same opinion then the court will normally get one appointed. If there's a range of views within that area of expertise then they'll let the parties bring their own experts.

The trouble with always having a single expert is that it could be on a decisive issue and if there is a legitimate range of opinion among experts then that should be heard.

I wouldn't worry overly about confusing judges. Here over 99% of civil cases are heard by a judge alone and looking at evidence and expert reports is their job. There'll be the odd fuck-up no doubt, but I don't think it's necessarily an enormous issue.

[crazy canuck]

The main problem is that an expert opinion is only as good as the facts they assume to be true.  Most often the battle of the experts isnt on a question which engages their expertise but rather questioning the factual basis (provided by counsel) upon which they based their opinion.

[The Brain]

What is the problem with having several experts? If they say the same thing then great, and if they don't it made sense not to have just one.

[crazy canuck]

In English civil trials the court have to give permission for the use of expert evidence. They can say that none is needed, arrange to appoint a single joint expert, limit the numbers and frames of reference of experts for either party. If one party gets loads of expert opinions and the court then doesn't give them permission they generally can't recover those costs even if they win. Also the expert's may have been instructed by one party but they've got a duty to the court - here if they fail in that they can be reported to their own regulator and can be sued by their own party for negligence.

We have similar rules of procedure.  BTW good luck trying to get a professional body to discipline one of their own over an expert opinion.   They are much more likely to be discredited by the judge and so that expert will have very little ability to be retained in future litigation.

[crazy canuck]

What is the problem with having several experts? If they say the same thing then great, and if they don't it made sense not to have just one.

Assuming you are not trolling - the issue is cost.  A wealthy defendant can afford multiple experts who say the same thing and give the appearance that because they have more saying x then x must be true.

[The Brain]

What is the problem with having several experts? If they say the same thing then great, and if they don't it made sense not to have just one.

Assuming you are not trolling - the issue is cost.  A wealthy defendant can afford multiple experts who say the same thing and give the appearance that because they have more saying x then x must be true.

I see how this could be a problem if the court is completely retarded.

[crazy canuck]

What is the problem with having several experts? If they say the same thing then great, and if they don't it made sense not to have just one.

Assuming you are not trolling - the issue is cost.  A wealthy defendant can afford multiple experts who say the same thing and give the appearance that because they have more saying x then x must be true.

I see how this could be a problem if the court is completely retarded.

If only a retard would be influenced then I would assume you agree there is no point in allowing mulitple opinions which say the same thing.

[The Brain]

What is the problem with having several experts? If they say the same thing then great, and if they don't it made sense not to have just one.

Assuming you are not trolling - the issue is cost.  A wealthy defendant can afford multiple experts who say the same thing and give the appearance that because they have more saying x then x must be true.

I see how this could be a problem if the court is completely retarded.

If only a retard would be influenced then I would assume you agree there is no point in allowing mulitple opinions which say the same thing.

If you know what people are going to say before they say it why have a trial in the first place?

[Razgovory]

Is Viper a lawyer?  I thought Expert witnesses often dealt with things like fingerprints and DNA.

[crazy canuck]

If you know what people are going to say before they say it why have a trial in the first place?

If I knew what people are going to say before they say it I would probably be able to make a lot more money doing other things.

In the case of an expert the party retaining the expert knows what they are going to say before they say it because the expert give that party a written report of what they have to say.  No point in having multiple reports saying the same thing.

[The Brain]

If you know what people are going to say before they say it why have a trial in the first place?

If I knew what people are going to say before they say it I would probably be able to make a lot more money doing other things.

In the case of an expert the party retaining the expert knows what they are going to say before they say it because the expert give that party a written report of what they have to say.  No point in having multiple reports saying the same thing.

No point for whom?

[crazy canuck]

If you know what people are going to say before they say it why have a trial in the first place?

If I knew what people are going to say before they say it I would probably be able to make a lot more money doing other things.

In the case of an expert the party retaining the expert knows what they are going to say before they say it because the expert give that party a written report of what they have to say.  No point in having multiple reports saying the same thing.

No point for whom?

No point at all

[The Brain]

If you know what people are going to say before they say it why have a trial in the first place?

If I knew what people are going to say before they say it I would probably be able to make a lot more money doing other things.

In the case of an expert the party retaining the expert knows what they are going to say before they say it because the expert give that party a written report of what they have to say.  No point in having multiple reports saying the same thing.

No point for whom?

No point at all

Apparently the people bringing multiple experts disagree with you.

[crazy canuck]

Apparently the people bringing multiple experts disagree with you.

The people that write the Rules of Court agree with me.  And that is really all that counts.