Should there be only one expert at trials?

[The Brain]

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.

OK, BB.

[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.

OK, BB.

You have been spending too much time in your bathroom thinking about rabbits - you seem to be going blind.

[The Brain]

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.

OK, BB.

You have been spending too much time in your bathroom thinking about rabbits - you seem to be going blind.

I'm 93, you're 16.

[Barrister]

You know the issue of "competing experts" is pretty rare in the crim side.

The science on most topics is pretty well settled.  a DNA hit, or a fingerprint match, is what it is.  You won't get an expert who disagrees with the basic science or result.  The fight instead is over what are the facts that form the basis for the opinion, and what conclusions can be drawn from the expert's opinion.

[Malthus]

Expert evidence is indeed a significant concern. The Canadian Federal Court, which often deals with expert witness-heavy issues like IP, has recently amended its rules in a number of ways that address some of these.

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2009/2009-10-17/html/reg1-eng.html

[viper37]

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.

No expert will go on stand if they don't say what the lawyer hiring him wants him to say.
That's the problem.

You can have a case of a man claiming he was temporarily insane and an expert saying it's total bullshit.
In another case, the same expert comes and says temporary insanity is quite plausible.

So you got jury who have 2 different expert opinions, don't know wich one is better.  They're left at the mercy of the most convincing lawyer, disregarding the truth.  And inevitably, this will go onto appeal, costing even more money to the state, they'll say the judge gave too much weight to the other party's expert, not enough for their own, or that the jury was too dumb to understand their expert.

The idea is to streamline the costs, and the time it takes for a trial to take place.  If both sides agrees to one neutral expert wich neither of them chose, things would be easier.  Then he proceeds with the evaluation of the case, and we're done with the experts.

[viper37]

You know the issue of "competing experts" is pretty rare in the crim side.

The science on most topics is pretty well settled.  a DNA hit, or a fingerprint match, is what it is.  You won't get an expert who disagrees with the basic science or result.  The fight instead is over what are the facts that form the basis for the opinion, and what conclusions can be drawn from the expert's opinion.

In recent trials, as an observer I saw:
- ballistic experts saying the opposite
- psychiatrists, I get the feeling none of them agree with each other diagnostics and they contradict themselves everytime
- biochemists proving the defendant wasn't drunk when he had 24 beers (though I think that hole has been plugged).
- engineers with contradicting reports.

[Razgovory]

Psychiatrists are basically lunatics who have spent a great deal of time and money to get a back stage pass to the asylum.

[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.

No expert will go on stand if they don't say what the lawyer hiring him wants him to say.
That's the problem.

You can have a case of a man claiming he was temporarily insane and an expert saying it's total bullshit.
In another case, the same expert comes and says temporary insanity is quite plausible.

So you got jury who have 2 different expert opinions, don't know wich one is better.  They're left at the mercy of the most convincing lawyer, disregarding the truth.  And inevitably, this will go onto appeal, costing even more money to the state, they'll say the judge gave too much weight to the other party's expert, not enough for their own, or that the jury was too dumb to understand their expert.

The idea is to streamline the costs, and the time it takes for a trial to take place.  If both sides agrees to one neutral expert wich neither of them chose, things would be easier.  Then he proceeds with the evaluation of the case, and we're done with the experts.

Two different experts giving contradictory statements indicate to me that maybe there is some doubt about the actual truth. And I am skeptical about how you will catch a single neutral expert who makes a crap statement.

[Scipio]

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

In Murica, any situation that requires an evaluation based upon special knowledge demands expert testimony. There are very complicated rules for experts, and two competing and complementary standards for evaluating their testimony.

[Viking]

in "civilized" countries the court appoints the expert.. though in the Breivik case that just resulted in outrage and political involvement after the first expert concluded he was mad as a hatter and not criminally responsible, at which point they got a new expert who said he was sane.

This all had people confused since we really wanted him both to be nuts and get punished.... so.. whatever system you do use, don't use the norwegian one.

[Barrister]

For once, Raz is actually on the right track.

Psychiatry is little better than witch doctors.  There are no concrete biological factors you can point to to show someone has a mental disorder.  It's all trying to make sense of the tea leaves.

Almost every other area however is much more concrete, and thus experts disagree a lot less often.