Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-06-13
EXPERT TESTIMONY.


EXPERT TESTIMONY.
There has been a great deal OF scandal
In New York. growing out OF the employ
ment" In criminal cases OF expert medi-
cal and chemical Witnesses The evils
attaching to the custom as II prevails
there were notably illustrated in cele-
brated trial last year. and. in order to
remedy these evils the New York
homoeopaths, with the assistance Of lead
ing lawyers, have prepared bill on the
subject The bill is based upon mea-
! sure that has been introduced in the
! Minnesota Legislature, and the central
idea IS that expert witnesses must be all
judicially selected. and properly qualified,
and not depend for their remuneration
upon either one side or the other. This
object the bill would effect by requiring
the court. on application. TO appoint from
three TO five experts from judicialy pre-
pared list. Rigid restrictions in regard
10 the experts talking with others about
scientific experiments made in the cases
| they are to testify in are Incorporated
| in the measure, and the bill further pro-
|
vdes that on their appearance in court
the experts shall be sworn and examined
by the court. and shall also be examined
by the counsel, If desired, upon their
medical qualifications and impartlality.
| Those who are not excluded shall be
! appointed as a commission of experts in
| the action.
hot drof
state that one Of the worst stumbling
blocks is presented by the constitutional
right Of the defence to call any desired
witness. in addition to the experts pro-
vided for by the bill. Yet, they think that
IL court were authorized to appoint
fixed number Of expert witnesses, the
effect of their evidence would probably
outweigh any partisan expert testimony
that might be offered
The Nation. however, does not agree
that the right of the defence referred
to should be regarded as a stumbling
block The testimony. it holds. Of State
experts, would Qose much Of its weight
If they alone were allowed TO testify. An
experts weight with a Juryman, it adds,
as with any one else, comes from his i'm
Partially and his reputation, and the
fact that the matters as TO which he tes-
titles are matters about which the testi-
mony Of only such as he is worth any
thing. If, continues our contemporary,
two or three perfectly impartial chemists
testify that a human stomach Is found
to contain n quantity OF poison amply
sufficient TO produce death. the testimony
OF two or three other paid witnesses for
the defence that II does not would prob
ably strengthen the impression produced
by the judicial testimony. On the other
hand, If the defence were precluded from
calling additional witnesses, juries would
probably often acquit because such
rule would violate the natural sense of
justice.
The theory Of the bill and the view
Of our contemporary both strike us as
sound. The experts introduced by the
defence would, in point OF fact not be
experts in the true sense Of the term.
They would be partisan witnesses, and
that fact would become all the more
apparent when their testimony was
weighed against that of judicial experts,
who were as impartial as the judge him
self. At the same time, should the
prisoner be innocent, he would have no.
thing to fear from the testimony of the
experts employed by the court, seeing
that these would feel as much bound to
state what was in favor OF the prisoner
as what was against him. The scandals
attaching to expert testimony have not
resulted altogether from the twisting and
and suppression of facts by experts for
the defence In many cases experts on
the other side-experts for the court
have proved themselves more violent pros
ecutors than the prosecuting attorneys.
They have proceeded in some instances
upon the theory that it was their duty
to prosecute and convict the prisoner,
whereas genuine expert testimony con-
templates no such thing as prosecution.
In other instances these court or State
experts have appeared TO lose sight Of
everything else except purpose TO prove
that the experts for the defence did not
know what they were talking about, and,
as q result the defence has been the
victim Of professional Jealousy.
Nor has the court expert in every case
when he has labored TO convict been
entirely responsible for the idea that
he should work to that end, regardless
of what his investigations may have
demonstrated TO him. This idea. Il
would seem, is entertained by not
few prosecuting attorneys, and these
prosecuting attorneys are not confined
10 New York and Minnesota.
The bill Of the New York homoeopaths
may not meet entirely the necessities of
the situation. Indeed II can hardly be
questioned that 1t has some serious de-
fects in the way of expenses that would
be involved in putting 1t into operation,
hide-bound restrictions, etc. Yet, as we
have said, 1t strikes US as being sound
I'm theory. TO say the least, ii consti-
tutes solid groundwork for law for
the abolition or rectifying of a great, a
growing, and a widespread evil, and is
well worthy Of being considered by the
Legislatures of other States than New,
York.
HENRY WYATT.