The Brattleboro reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1907-1912, 1907-12-13
EXPERT TESTIMONY.

The increasing tendency to employ
exnert medical testimony in criminal
and other trials has been the subject
of much deserved newspaper comment
of late. In this and many other
states there have been eases where
this method of legal controversy has
been carried to such point as to ap'
near more like battle for profes'
sional supremacy than a calm, dellb'
crate recital of the observations OF
trained minds as applied to the case
under consideration. Too often the
testimony of opposing alienists differs
so widely as to create the impression
that expert opinions can be bought 10
order. Aside from this phase of the
subject which happily has not been
noted in the state of Vermont, there
is also the question of expense. The
costs that pile up as the result of the
employment of medical experts are
enormous. and the results obtained sell
dom seem to warrant the outlay. In
the recent Fairbanks murder trial for
example, the state employed one ex-
pert who received $50 a day and ex'
penses for nine days service and an
other who received $25 a day and ex-
penses for 10 days service. In addi-
ton to these both sides had the ser
vice of a third expert whose bill VIII
probably amount to almost as much
as either of the other two, and there
were still others who testified solely
for the defence and whose expenses
in this case will have to be borne by
the state. Altogether the cost of the
expert witnesses in the Fairbanks trial
probably amounts to fully $1,000.
This is a handsome sum of money, and
yet the expert opinions which it pur-
chased were in the main alike. To
prevent the recurrence of such ex-
penses as these and for the purpose of
raising the status of expert testimony
to a higher plane The st. Adams Mes
senger recently suggested plan which
is outlined in the following para
graph:
Why is it not possible for the state
ln IF 10
medical experts of acknowledged
skill and experience who shall not be
retained" by either side but who
shall be paid to give their testimony
in court on precisely the same condi-
tons of professional honor that they
would give their opinion in consul
tation in a sickroom, no matter which
side of their case it helped or him
dered9
In other words, why can not this
expert testimony be admitted as a
wholly neutral factor in the trial, with
out regard to the object of the prose
cution or the claims of the defense,
but simply for the good old-fashioned
purpose of arriving at the truth, and
seeing that justice is accomplished
because the truth is known?
This may mean the employment Of
more than one medical expert at times
to be sure, because some issues are
complex and doctors, like other men,
will disagree. But it will mean that
their only motive for such disagree
ment can be an honest difference of
scientific judgment, and the examina-
ton of few witnesses upon this
plane, without suspicion of their bias
in favor of any side because they are
"retained by neither, must result in
the deduction of balance of inclina-
ton Of opinion, one way or the other,
that would give the jury reasonable
idea of the probable merits of the
case.
1t would mean that examinations
and cross examinations that now con
sumo whole weeks would require only
few days at the utmost, and that,
as consequence, justice would be
speedier, more certain, and less ex-
pensive, while the courts would be re-
lieved forever of maintaining what
has come to be more or less of a mon
umental farce that is fast destroying
public confidence in medical expert
testimony of any kind.