The judge in Alabama enlisted the aid of six so-called special masters, legal and scientific scholars who performed the task of identifying and interviewing potential independent experts. The special masters spent over 300 hours trying to find appropriate people who had no conflict of interest. We were looking for people who did not work directly in that field, but people who worked close enough to that field that they didn't have to start at square one in terms of the necessary information. The AAAS hopes to streamline the process of finding neutral experts. The AAAS and the American Bar Association developed this plan several years ago but have thus far failed to secure suitable funding.
Judges have wide latitude in using such independent experts.
In the pretrial phase, the independent expert can help the judge assess the testimony offered by the opposing parties' expert witnesses and decide what elements can be presented to the jury. During the trial, the independent expert can testify, answering questions from the judge and from the lawyers. The idea of court-appointed experts does not get a warm welcome from many lawyers. Even independent experts have biases, he notes, and they have tremendous power over juries. A study by the Federal Judicial Center backs Henderson up.