New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-01-31
nrEEcrIKE rESTS E0R ms lNITY.

The reports of the Batavia murder case ought
to convince the public that a change Is needed
in the methods by which the opinions of experts
are obtained in criminal cases where insanity is
pleaded as a defence. at present the counsel
for the defence draws up a hypothetical case,
III which he emphasizes every point that cam
make for his theory, and slurs every hostile
point. The counsel for the prosecution on his
part makes up a similar hypothetical case, in
which he reverses this procedure, dwelling
strongly upon the points which favor the theory
of the defendants sanity, and glancing lightly
over those which tell against that theory. The
expert who is called upon to answer these ques-
tons is manifestly put at a great disadvantage,
and ii may easily happen that he will be dis
abled from giving trustworthy and accurate
opinion. The practice az 1t exists Is clearly not
in the interests of justice, nor is 1t scientific.
There is no justification for a method which
tends to disguise and confuse the real issue,
and to prevent the expert from exercising the
special knowledge he is supposed to possess.
In Austria and France all such cases are phi
marily submitted to two or more medical
experts, who are afforded every facility for ex-
amining the accused, and are allowed, il it be
thought necessary, to take him to an asylum
and keep him there several days to complete
the diagnosis of his condition. Then they
make a written report, which is submitted to
the Court, and which forms the basis of oral
examination. BY this means the unembar-
raised exercise of the experts skill and knowl-
edge is secured and he proceeds upon the
actual facts of the case, instead of upon a
hypothetical exhibit which is almost certain TO
be unduly cOlored, and therefore misleading
and inaccurate.
The truth is that there is needed Il consensus
between the law and the medical profession
in this regard. Expert opinions upon insanity
cases must be the only trustworthy ones, pro
yidcd that they are really expert opinions, and
that they are based upon free and full examina-
ton of the subject and not upon fictitious
sketches made with special hostile or
friendly motive. No medical man ought to be
asked to stake his reputation upon replies to
questions prepared expressly to help one side
of the case, and no jury ought to be required to
form a judgment upon such inadequate and
partial testimony. The expert can only form a
correct diagnosis by studying the previous
history and the present condition of the sub
iect. and if he has not had the opportunities
for informing himself on these heads, his opin-
ion can only be of secondary Importance.
Perhaps the most direct way to adjust this
matter would be to adopt the French practice
by which the Court calls the experts, and
neither the prosecution nor the defence is
allowed to tamper with them. But it Is clear
that our practice is radically defective, and that
it needs amendment specially in these two
particulars: First, no medical witnesses who
have not made special study of insanity
should be admitted; second, the evidence of
alienists should be taken in the simplest and
most direct manner, after thorough personal