New-York tribune., 1907-04-15
ATTACK on ALIENISTS.
LaWYERS GIVE OPINIONS.
We'll KmOzCn Members of the Bar
Dra7c Conclusions from Th05c Case.

DrGTC Conclusions from lh01c C0Sc'
Criticisms q the procedure in the criminal
courts. and especially caustc comments On the aG-
mission of much expert testimony. have been made
hy members Of the legal profession since me ois-
nFreenent of The Jury in the Thaw case. and yes
;erlav several well known members Of the bar eX-
pressed themselves strongly in favor o. some
change that would result IN shorter trials and a
reduction of expense TO tho state.
The general opinion was that state board ~
qualified alenists would be best able 10 pass upon
the question of a prisoners sanity before he was
brought 10 trial. Another view that the power
~ She presiding 3udge 10 limit the number OF eK-
per, witnesses was not exercised as often in this
country as in England. whore more than two or
fhree alienists are seldom permitted 10 be caled
1Bv either the defence or the prosecution
That aiienists who receive fee for their services
should not be permitted 70 testify under oath was
The idea advanced by Martin ". Iittleton. former
Borough President Of Brooklyn and counsel io'
Colonel ". u. Mann in the Hapgood case.
The severest criticism of the practice Of depend
ing upon alienists' testimony" said Mr. Littleton
was made by the Jurors themselves In the ina"
case several Of them admitted that they disre-
Earded il entirely in their deliberations And THIS
is no exception, I believe. Jurors are more likely
20 take the testimony of practical men. who. Ike
themselves have not specialized on some branch Of
scientific knowledge.
1T seems TO me that family doctor who has
known a man from his childhood IS the hest quail
fed 10 state his condition. An expert the other
hand. might take certain facts and say that from
HIS experience they would result in certain condi-
zion. But such opinions are merely long range
guessing.
MANY alienists 20 Upon the stand, md after
taking oath are really special peaders in behalf
of the side by which they retained. Such men
ere debsuchng the good name of the medical pro
fession 10 man who receives a penny for his
service should be allowed testify under oath
There is taint when money i'm any way has 10 90
n - Of a
II an expert Of any sou is hired he should be
introduced a special pleader on the matter IN
which ne is an expert. What would persons think
if a lawyer took the oath 10 tell the whole truth
and nothing hut The truth before he addressed
fury2 And Vet the attitude of some specialists In
trying 10 further the cause or the side thar pays
item is no more Jealous than The attitude Of the
counsel for that eide.
As 10 the dragging out Of a case let me ask
whether any court would permit twenty-five law
vers to argue case And Yet what were Evans
Hamilton and others in the Thaw case hut counsel
10 plead The medical side Of the case?
In my opinion. there ought TO be in the posses
sion Of the courts list or physicians or other eX-
perts whose standing is unquestioned and who
would be available for service when required. They
should receive no reianers from anybody, not even
from the state. Then they could perform the
proper functions of expert. which are 10 in
struct the jury OF laymen in matters within their
province OF knowledge
Beyond this matter OF expert evidence I think
criminal procedure compares most faTorably
with that OF England Since the Thaw trial il has
been said that if the judges here charged the jury
on the facts as wei the law there would
be fewer disagreements. That is the procedure IN
England but the danger would be that their view
of the would be accepted and adopted by the
jury. The Thaw case might have been decided
way the other If the Judge under our pro-
cedure permitted charge the facts
Under our system there are more disagreements.
but think il is fairer 10 the prisoner"
Dr. " J. OSullivan. the medico-legaI expert.
who successfully conducted the defence in the
Buchanan poisoning case and also won by his in
sanity plea The case Of Hannigan. who killed a
man in 42d street attacked the selecting
experts.
Some years ago." said DR.. O'Sullivan Il put
myself on record in published article advocat-
ing The appointing Of body Of men duly qualified
10 act as experts From their number Witnesses
might be drawn. The persons best able 10 decide
4 man g4sA4llcatlpils are tlose IN MS own pro-
lession. Thus. ! think that If such body Of ply
sictans a. the Academy Of Medicine some SINH
lar organization should be called upon 10 furnish
the courts with a list Of physicians surgeons
noted for their learning experts might safely be
drawn from The list submitted.
In my own experience / have often discovered
,estify desr nv nv irti E 5 y Ms -, I i,iy -
IS almost valueless TO a lawyer il is the mounte-
The answer fhaT soiinds Fyyeefest TO those Who tr
retained him. Ask such one the capacity OF
Abrahams bosom and he viii rattle Of answer
10 balance experts testimony against anothers
under present conditions. that their influence Is
nulineo Sul, they delay the case and increase
expense
That there should be a state board OF medical
experts was also the opinion Of William ". Can't
well. Of the firm Of Cantwell a. Moore counsel for
Dr Samuel J. Kennedy in the Dolly Reynolds case.
almost perfect" said NJ. Cantwell, but IL the
court exercised its right 10 limit the number Of
experts 10 be called the delay and confusion wound
he avoided. After al. the expert is theoretically
merely an instructor Of the jury, and should have
no other object than scientific truth
William Rand jr. former Assistant District At
ROrney, who appeared in the MOlineux case re-
fused TO express his opinion the subject.
Il have opinion" he said, ''and a decided
opinion, too. There several points on which
our criminal procedure might be Improved but Il
would not do for me 10 make public my views az
VHssent''
John d. Lindsay shook his head when asked for
opinion and replied
Whatever flaws there are in our manner Of
handling cases, they VIII probably be remedied fn
time. II is too big subject