New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-02-27
TESTIMONY or EXPERTS.
LECTURE OF HORACE BARNARD BEFORE THE MEDIco-
LEGAL SOCIETY.


LEGAL SOCIETY.
At the regular meeting Of the MedicO-L Legal
Society last evening" Horace Barnard read paper Gu
titled Experts Witnesses. which he adyOcat
the Of experts in cases where their knowledge
was needed from the position Of paid witnesses
side to that OF Instructors OF the court.
He first spoke Of the jury system. which had
garded the safeguard OF the people, and in which,
II any fault found 1t must be from the mate
rial from which IL was drawn. The excep ona privi-
lege OF an expert Is to offer ali opinion to jury,
aud 1t Is In his relation to the jury that
he is now considered. Too often have the
vercs ures been the reflection OF the opinions OF
the experts To this it is often said that there
is necessity them. But will not surely be asserted
as the testimony is in fact, that IL is necessary that the
witness should be allowed to give argument upon the
facts In great many the opinions OF the experts
relate to matters Of fact which could be testified to
facts.
great number OF citations we're given to show an
expression Of opinion might be Obviated by narration
Of facts In speaking Of the statement that experts
were an aid court he mentioned the fact that
on the laws OF the exact sciences the testimony Of
experts was often heaped either side of a
case, known experts having often Numerically
opposite opinions. II there was such con.
might not be the case less known. The lee
spoke Of the uncertainty OF the testimony OF med
cal experts In criminal cases. where the law demanded
mat every doubt should be given to the prisoner
such Testimony should not take tho place OF facts
The jury not competent TO Judge Of the
reputation. the greater the danger The testimony
OF poison should be confined TO a
ration OF the processes by which the poison found but
here should stop. There Is fact demonstrated, but
p sO saoe @ He
Pennsylvania where the mistake Of expert cost much
anxiety and trouble, and said II was evident
that 1t would be much better to allow the
at such rather than have SO much depend
upon man. If expert testimony Ia not founded upon
facts narration OF facts, then without facts, the
opinion must be mere conjecture Examples have
shown that experts cannot always be relied upon for
strict iDpartldty In such cases both judge and Jury
should be read up in the subject. and that naturally
would render expert useless
lie then spoke the defense Of insanity, which had
found favor strongly that every phase OF passion
lust had become to be claimed only some form OF
emotional insanity Faults IN the verdicts OF juries
often the mirrors OF the opinions OF experts would
become much less, IL such excuses we're removed. As
the proper expert testimony IS TO explain the symptoms
of genuine attacks Of insanity why should he he al
lowed 10 express OpinOusi Instead OF an expert being
required TO give opinion upon hypothetical case,
Lr should give his experience, and thus become TO
Judge the reports OF authorities. The proper position
OF the expert Is that OF Instructor IN such SUBJECTS
the court aud jury are ignorant or But AN opinion
Is intangible II Is not bound by an oath Ike facts. In
opinion, the expert combines witness and advocate
tue expert usurped the place OF witness ad-
yooate and Judge, when 10 was evident that
he had examined only side OF the case. Thls obec
ton would remain a. long as experts were called upon
Instructor. and remove him from temptation. An
pert should DO summoned by the court, 80 that an
ghtened judge coud charge the Jury Instead OF ono
confused with the opposing opinions OF experts either
side. IL the rules OF evidence should DO strictly
forced and experts DO bound by honor law aud Justice
would to greatly aided by Lhs combination