The record-union., 1897-02-13
EXPERT MEDICAL TESTIMONY.

DR.. Henry Smith Williams in the
North American Review for February
has grappled with a question that has
not a little disturbed jurists for a some
time. He assails expert testimony as
given by the faculty in cases of homi-
eide especially. He declares that:
Under existing circumstances expert
testimony in criminal trials is to be re-
sarded, according to the point Of view,
as a farce or a tragedy. The expert wit
ness presents Us the humiliaing spec
tacle of the alleged scientist turned ad-
vOcate, mountebank and trickster. He
appears as a prOfesSed partisan-for
hire. He hides his true opinions behind
equivOcal or evasive anSwers-for con-
sideration. He expresses by implication
Views he does not really hold-that he
may seem TO earn his fee. In a word, he
sacrifices his mistress Science at the
shrine of Mammon.
If this Indictment Of the expert testi-
mony is to thought too severe, and the
Record Union" is not disposed to say
that it is; at least, the expert medical
witness is accused openly and notori-
ously of all this and much more. DR..
Williams adds:
He is rallied at, scoffed at, jeered. The
most charitable of popular opinions as
to his character seems to be that which
regards him as an unmitigated joke.
And meantime he is placed in such po-
sition that 1t is impossible for him to
defend himself against these allegations.
tTlf ll4as glG.s4
honest, conscientious, but under exist
fng methods he cannot prove that he IS
such. The populace Will judge him by
his company, and, as matters stand,
some portions Of his company are pretty
certain to be bad. Whatever his real
character, the fate of poor Tray awaits
him.
The spirit Of the law is said TO be COM
mon sense. But it's letter has certainly
permitted a wide departure from this
alleged standard. The attempt to add
TO the communal veal by utilizing the
knowledge Of experts has eliminated In
something not far removed from total
failure. What should be most serious
function has passed into a joke; and
by common consent the joke has gone
far enough.
But if 1t Is a joke, and that is by no
means a fiippant way Of terming it,
we incline to the belief that the law
yers and the courts are more blame
worthy than the doctors. Under our
present system these scientific men are
called 60 answer hypothetical questions
that of necessity commit them to one OF
90 ofa hsr
1T Is attempted TO apply the answer to
O. case in hand the witness. moved by
natural impulses. does his best TO sus-
tain the view he has taken. Each side
secures a doctor with a view that fits
its theory, and thus we have the faculty
in nearly every criminal case where ii is
called upon, divided in opinion, leaving
the jurors as much in doubt as before
the witnesses were called. What would
seem to be a way out would be TO confine
medical expert testimony to the elucida-
tron Of principles. only leaving their APP
plication out OF the witness box.
DR.. Williams. however has a plan OF
reform that is novel. He claims that
because one is a physician it does moi
follow that he is an expert in insanity
nor qualified to pass upon certain Is
sues arising in criminal trials, nor be
cause he has read or written books, OF
practiced a given number of years. But
an expert should be one who is special
ly qualified as such. Trained experts
then, should be those who through a
sort of civil service examination are
SO declared. One being thus qualified
and indorsed should give his statement
of facts as he finds them, or his opln-
ion as to causes behind the indicia OF
facts. etc. Such statements should b'
taken into a case for what they are
worth and be submitted as are Other
evidences OF truth.
He holds that 10 place the exper'
unon the stand TO be badgered by law
vars who cram on technical points o.
science and medicine for occasion, real
IL conserves no good, and results II