Court-appointed expert witnesses are exactly what they sound like: trained experts in whichever field is needed, depending on the scientific evidence of the case, that are selected by the judge to be utilized as the single expert in the case. This expert reviews the evidence and renders his opinion. This procedure effectively removes the "dueling experts" scenario that plagues most trials with a need for scientific testimony.
Court appointed expert witnesses were first introduced to the judicial process in an attempt to solve the issue of biased experts testifying in court. Due to the current process of litigants hand selecting their own experts and compensating them in return for the expert generating a favorable report for each litigant's case, juries are placed in the difficult position of choosing between two experts who both seem equally qualified in terms of knowledge, skill, and experience. The only apparent difference regarding these dueling experts is each expert's opinion regarding the scientific evidence at issue in the case. As a result of the diverging opinions, juries often discount both expert opinions and attempt to evaluate the scientific evidence without the assistance of the trained professionals. This appears a natural result since each expert has a large personal interest in reaching a favorable outcome for her hiring party.
How would these experts benefit the judicial process?
Court-appointed experts eliminate the
compensation and selection biases of the current litigation procedure by
removing the expert's incentive to render an opinion favoring one side or the
other. Rather, the court-appointed expert has more motivation to review the
material honestly in preparation for answering the tough questions that both
sides to the litigation will pose in order to challenge the expert's opinion. Additionally,
this procedure enhances the juries' role in sorting through the scientific
evidence because there is only one expert to consider rather than two who
oppose each other. Therefore, the expert appears more credible to the jury, and
it is less likely to discount the expert's opinion. Finally, the confusion of
two dueling experts in the courtroom is abolished, and the expert can be vetted
thoroughly by both parties when she takes the stand to ensure competency in
knowledge, skill, and experience.
What are the weaknesses of court-appointed experts?
While court-appointed experts might seem at first glance like a favorable solution to the issue of dueling experts, this procedure potentially poses larger issues than the current system in place. For one thing, by judges taking the power out of the hand of the litigants and choosing the a single expert, the court is disrupting a fundamental aspect of the American justice system: the adversarial process. A litigant is entitled to choose her own expert to review the scientific evidence and have the jury hear a favorable expert opinion if there is an expert to render such an opinion. Furthermore, the simply fact that compensation and selection biases are minimized does not negate other potential biases such as preexisting conceptions. A high concern exists that juries will rely too heavily on the testimony of the court-appointed expert when the reality is that the expert's opinion could be entirely erroneous. Finally, the largest issue with this procedure is that it is hardly utilized in court. While this procedure seems useful in theory, it fails in practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment