The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1893-06-18
EXPERTS IN TRIALS.
THEIR CONTRADICTIONS AROUSE A
WISH FOR A CHANGE.

Two Plans Suggested.
! The question of n new method of taking
expert medical testimony is being actively
agitated in the Academy of Medicine and
in the Society of Medical Jurisprudence
Supreme Court Justice Willard Bartlett
and Professor Landon Carter Gray are the
leaders in the movement.
us reform needed. in your opinion, in
the present method of taking expert medic
al and chemical testimony" Dr. Gray was
asked yesterday
1.-THE very fact that experts are so much
derided by lawyers and regarded with sus-
picion by the laity." he said, lis evidence of
the need of u reform. Besides, those who are
thoroughly acquainted with the matters on
which experts are called to testify know
well that it is the exception to the rule for
the juries to obtain the real truth about the
matter. And the jurors are the Judges. In
addition, the best medical men are very re-
luctant to go upon the witness stand, as
they feel that their reputation, laboriously
obtained through long years, is likely to be
Jeopardized by the contradiction of some
utterly incompetent person."
us not expert testimony often rendered
practically valueless by the contradictions
of experts assuming to equal knowledge,
discriminate intelligently?"
| Undoubtedly. That is the reason why
think reform is needed. The law ought
to put experts above suspicion, and it ought
to provide for some means of discriminating
between the competency of experts
THE present system is failure because
the experts are employed as partisans, are
expected to go into court to fight for their
own side and against the other side, and if
they maintain, as they should do, a perfect
~ impartial and judicial attitude and adj
NIT something that is damaging to their
side, they are considered to be disloyal
I THE theory of the law is that the quail
ties of an expert can be determined by cross
examination, but this is Il fallacy, for there
are few lawyers-not one out of II thousand
who will coach themselves for the task,
and there are even fewer lawyers who are
capable of mastering the subject in such II
short space of time"
what new plan would you suggest?o Dr.
Gray was asked.
II have two plans" he replied, (which
believe would go far to remedy the evils of
the present method Of taking expert tcsti-
mony.
( II would suggest, in the first place, that
the experts i'll jury cases hold conference
and examine the plaintiff, either before or
during the trial. Second, l would suggest
that in cases tried by n judge alone the
judge select two medical men of reputation
in the branch of medicine under discussion
to act as his medical advisers and to sit
with him on the bench for that purpose, to
be paid by the state or city.
THE first plan or system of conferences
has been for many years the custom in
Leeds, England, and is spoken of by Sir
James Fitzstephen in his history of the
English criminal law us having been so sue
,cessful that the medical men are scarcely
ever cross oSqmined, although it should be,
/ think, the privilege of counsel to do this,
if they SO choose.
! I'm such conference the medical men
are almost oHrtaia to agree OH the facts rs
experience has shown in England and in
Brooklyn since it was suggested there first
by Judge Bartlett several years ago. Judge
Bartlett has tried the plan with unvarying
success"
Would the first plan proposed by you
make it easier to get ut an expert on cross
examinations"
"Manifestly IL is much easier to cross eX-
anime witness as to the validity of his
conclusions when the facts are agreed upon
than it is when the facts are in doubt, be-
cause the conclusions are matters that can
be tested by statistics and by textbooks
"ln the cases that are not tried bya Jury,
but only Il judge, the addition to the court
of two medical advisers makes no changes
Ill the law in any essential particular, be-
cause the judge himself is not subject to
cross examination, and there is no possible
hardship i'll associatiDg with him two com
potent men to advise him, even though
they are free from liability to cross exam
lnatlon. Moreover, the custom will not de-
hon. nj.
Producing other expert witnesses, paid By
themselves, If they choose, who can be sub
Ject to the usual cross examination.
! by this double system medical men of
the highest standing will feel that they can
go into court with dignity without the dan
ger OF having their expert knowledge sub
Jected to igncrant, t1ippant or malicious
criticism"
suppose the experts on IL jury trial could
not agree on a set of facts or symptoms?"
There has never been Il failure to agree
i have been g member of several confer
ences of this sort, and there was no trouble
about agreeing"
How would the judge select his advis-
erss"
I'm large city like New York, unless
the Judge knew some man thoroughly COM
petcnt in the brunch of medicine under dis
cussion, he could address letter to the
president of the Academy of Medicine, who
could give him list of the best men in
that line. lnasmuch as the academy elects
new president every three years, there
could not be much clique5m in the names
suggested.
I'm the smaller communities the reputa-
ton of physicians is so well known that
the judge would have no difficulty in max
ing proper choice"
Gould the conclusions of experts from
an agreed set of facts or symptoms differ
very greatly"
mo; not if the experts in the conference
were competent men.
II am not lawyer" said DR.. Gray in
conclusion, "and therefore ! am not com.