The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-05-01
ExPnRr wrrNnssrs AGAIN.

The Advertiser has more than once had something to say on the subject of expert testimony in criminal trials. and especially medical exports. We have spoken of the matter more in sorrow than in anger" because the testimony of these experts in some cases tends to bring discredit on one of the noblest of human professions. On this subject The Portland Oregon ian says:
 In criminal cases witnesses are ordinarily paid per diem and mile age fixed by law and paid by the fendant, there would be at once sus. picion that payment of the fee had for its purpose the influencing Of the testimony given. But when expert case. there is no limit to the amount of money the defendant may pay with out its being charged that be is pur- chasing Testimony that esuld not be auction of this expert testimony. paid for by the defendant, that oonsti- tuted the basis for one of the strong inal procedure In this country, which criticism applies not only to the Thaw case, but to many others as well. Con- ment upon this subject. in this coun- try and 1n Europe; has pretty gener- perts should be called bY the court and paid by the county or State. and should not appear as witnesses for either the. prosecution or the defense in particular.
 The medical profession itself should be interested in establishment of this reform. for there can be nothing cred 1far rn.xT Af such radical differences as were seen in the Thaw case. When one doctor declares under oath that a man was suffering from brain storm," and an- the medical profession declares In as positive a manner that there is no such thing as brain storm. the people may ba expected to wonder whether in medical science. It is altogether probable that if the physicians who testified in the Thaw case had been called by the court. and rot by the attorneys for the prosecution and the defense. there would have been much less occasion for reflections upon the uncertainty of experts. In thousands of criminal cases the defense of insan- has the public heard of brain storm.
 These observations are just and fair. and If reform is possible certainly the members of the medical profess sion are as deeply interested in bringing about that reform as any one can be. Suppose. for example, there should come up a lawsuit to secure payment for the erection of an expensive structure, and suppose ex- pert mechanics on one side should swear that the building was we'll con- structed and according to contract, while equally expert mechanics on the other side should swear that the work was not well done, and not done according to the contract: would not the general public lose faith in the pert witnesses7
 That would certainly be the result, yet that is just what occurred in the Thaw case. Each side summoned its own experts to decide on certain con ditions O. body and mind of the pris- oner at certain times. If all these witnesses had been thoroughly com petent, and if none of them had bad any bi~s or prejudice for or against the prisoner, is it not at least reason able that their conclusions would have bee1 the same? That, we repeat, would have been at least a reasonable presumption. yet as a general thing the testimony of experts on one side was as diametrically opposed to the evidence on the other side as if the witnesses had been testifying about different men and on different ques- tions. It Is not strange that such conflict of evidence should lead to the belief that .each expert witness was testifying--not in the interests of truth and injustice-but in the inter est of the side employing him. As- suredly the effect of this widespread opinion cannot be other than injuri- ous to the medical profession and If its members can bring about a re- form it is to their interest and for the credit of their profession that they do so.