The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-05-01
Expert Testimony in Murder Trials.

/ Expert testimony IN murder IT1a4s-
The trials in New York of Carlyle W
Harris and Robert B. Buchanan, each
/ charged with having caused the death of
/ his wife by morphine poisoning, were
/ similar in many respects. In each in
stance the defendant was medical man,
! and the chief witnesses were experts in
me liciue or chemistry Several experts,
/ in fact, testified in both cases. Carlyle
/ Hrris was convicted upon the testimony
/ OF one Of them, who swore that by
/ chemical experiments he had dis
I covered morphine in the body of Harris
I wife. This expert Prof. Witthaus, said
/ there could be no mistake about the pres
/ ence of morphine in the body; his
/ color tests from chemical reactions
produced the coIors that morphine gives.
/ Prof. Witthaus was the prosecutions
expert
On the other hand, experts for the de-
Tense stated that the color tests which
| had convinced Prof. Witthaus could not
be relied upon they were not conclusive;
there were undiscovered ptomaines" in
dead body that would give the same
color reactions as morphine. However,
they were unable, because of the ''undis-
covered ptomaines, - to convince the jury
that Prof Witthaus' conclusions would
admit of doubt so Harris was convicted.
In the Buchanan trial Prof Witthaus
was again the principal expert Tor the
prosecution. Again he testified as to the
finding of morphine, by color tests, in the
body of the alleged victim of the de
PENDANT. But this time the defense was
better prepared to answer his seemingly
conclusive analysis Prof. Vaughan, of
the University of Michigan, testified that
not only would certain ptomaines in
human cadaver give similar color tests to
those given by morphine, but that he had
discovered those ptOmanes-the 'undis-
covered ptOmaines" of the Harris trial
had isolated them, and was prepared to
demonstrate to the court and jury all that
he claimed. And by direction of the Judge
he made a series of chemical experiments
in the presence of the court and jury that
sustained his assertion.
This is only one of a number of instances
in the course of the two trials, taken
singly or in comparison with each other.
in which the expert testimony was con
Trajectory. In fact, throughout the
trials it appeared that the experts for the
defense and for the prosecution differed
as widely in their conclusions as the at
torney for the two sides differed in their
purposes In one instance an expert for
the prosecution was handed an object by
a lawyer for the defense, who asked him
to tell the jury what it was. ''Why, that
is a caricature of brain, " said the ex-
pert. AS matter of fact, it was brain
out of a human head, preserved by
chemical treatment.
These differences of experts have led to a
discussion of plans to change the method
of taking expert testimony in trials where
the outcome depends largely or almost
wholly upon the conclusions of experts.
Under the present system each side en-
ploys its own medical or chemical experts
They are expected to, and apparently do,
furnish only information that tends to
strengthen the side of the case upon
which they are employed. In the court
room they fall upon each others theories
and destroy as many as they can and ridi-
Guile the others. BY constantly contra
nical terms and abstruse formula they so
cloud the minds of the jurors that they
frequently know less of the matter at the
conclusion of the examination than at its
commencement
One plan of reform, proposed by DIR. L.
C. Gray, of New York, is that the presid-
ing judge at trials turning upon expert
medical testimony be empowered to select
two medical professors of ability in the
branch of medicine under discussion to
sit with him upon the bench and act as
advisers to the court and jury. The idea
was suggested to him by the fact that in
the admiralty courts of England the Judge
is allowed to suggest tworretired naval
officers, who are called nautical assess
ors, and who sit on the bench with the
Judge in an advisory capacity, so as to
keep the court informed in technical nau-
tical details.
This suggestion has many drawbacks.
Experts competent to so sit in Judgment
would demand the compensation of su-
preme court judges. They could hardly
afford to give their time for less And if
! they should be allowed handsome re-
Enumeration, an element of politics would
almost surely creep in. The doctor with
the political pull" would sit on the
bench, whether he was competent or not
and the end sought would be lost In the
meantime, there can be no question con-
corning the need of a change in the man
ner of taking expert testimony in murder
trials
Government directorships of the Pacific
railroads are not political plums. They