NY Times: Let’s Scrap American Expert Witness Procedures, Adversarial Process
One in an increasingly long line of attacks on treasured “American exception” jurisprudence (although not as nauseating as their recent attack on American free speech laws as needing to be revamped towards the British/Canadian “model” - i.e., where free speech gives way to “offended” listeners).
“Juries often find it hard to evaluate expert testimony on complex scientific matters, many lawyers say, and they tend to make decisions based on the expert’s demeanor, credentials and ability to present difficult information without condescension. An appealingly folksy expert, lawyers say, can have an outsized impact in a jury trial.
Some major common-law countries are turning away from partisan experts. England and Australia have both adopted aggressive measures in recent years to address biased expert testimony.
Both sides in Mr. Wilkins’s case said the American approach to expert testimony was problematic.
“One’s biased for the defense,” said Rockne O. Cole, Mr. Wilkins’s lawyer. “The other’s biased for the state. I think it’s who’s signing their paycheck.”
Anne M. Lahey, an assistant prosecutor in Johnson County in Iowa, largely agreed. “They’re usually offsetting as far as their opinions are concerned,” she said of expert testimony.”