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?
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2013, 12:51:48 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2013, 01:06:58 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:10:25 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:10:25 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:18:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:10:25 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:20:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:18:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:10:25 PM
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?
Is Viper a lawyer? I thought Expert witnesses often dealt with things like fingerprints and DNA.
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:21:56 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:28:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:21:56 PM
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?
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:31:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:28:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:21:56 PM
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
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:32:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:31:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:28:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:21:56 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:33:31 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:34:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:33:31 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:34:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:34:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:33:31 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:37:02 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:34:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 30, 2013, 01:34:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:33:31 PM
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. :(
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.
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
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:10:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2013, 02:19:39 PM
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.
Psychiatrists are basically lunatics who have spent a great deal of time and money to get a back stage pass to the asylum.
Quote from: viper37 on October 30, 2013, 02:48:09 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 30, 2013, 01:10:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2013, 01:25:49 PM
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.
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.
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.