Public opinion: Expert witnesses are in the dock
The increase in litigation, particularly in cases of abuse, child custody, accidents and stress, has meant a corresponding rise in the demand for expert witnesses to testify in court. Many trials hinge on the understanding of a particular syndrome, technology or process.
These expert witnesses are frequently drawn from the public sector: they are found in university laboratories, government agencies, research institutes and hospitals.
Professionals such as ergonomists, psychologists, IT specialists, doctors, bacteriologists and social workers are selected for their supposed expertise in a particular area.
Some “semi-professional” expert witnesses can double or triple their income, charging as much as £200 an hour. Some even “go private” because the pickings are so good.
Court appearances can be thrilling. Expert witnesses are often treated with respect by lawyers and judges and can even become minor celebrities.
But when experts get it wrong, there can be serious consequences. Last week national guidelines were published calling for judges to vet expert witnesses before they are allowed to give evidence.
The guidelines, from an inquiry chaired by Baroness Kennedy, were published after miscarriages of justice in which three mothers — Angela Cannings, Sally Clark and Trupti Patel — were wrongly accused of killing their babies. All three cases relied on expert evidence.
Since then, doctors who have offered opinions or given expert evidence in trials involving children’s safety have been investigated by the General Medical Council.
Apart from the fact that “expert” evidence may sometimes be plain wrong, many expert witnesses are poorly equipped to deal with courtroom appearances.
The greatest difficulty for many scientific and medical expert witnesses is, paradoxically, their training. Not only do they tend to speak in jargon and acronyms that make what they are saying impenetrable to the layman, they are also unused to being cross- examined.
All scientists deal with ambiguity and may favour one theory over another, but what lawyers want is certainty. This is often hard for expert witnesses to give and they can be flattered or bullied into giving an opinion that reflects their values as much as their knowledge.
And that can be a problem. Being an expert witness is a high-stakes game. A reputation built up over a lifetime can be destroyed by one mistake.
Being a good witness is a skill. Having “expert” knowledge is not enough. It is about being quick-witted and articulate; believable yet accurate. And being prepared to admit what you don’t know — even though you are the expert.
So I am not sure if it is cowardice or wisdom that leads me regularly to turn down opportunities to be an expert witness.
Adrian Furnham is professor of psychology at University College London
Source: Sunday Times 12.9.04
These expert witnesses are frequently drawn from the public sector: they are found in university laboratories, government agencies, research institutes and hospitals.
Professionals such as ergonomists, psychologists, IT specialists, doctors, bacteriologists and social workers are selected for their supposed expertise in a particular area.
Some “semi-professional” expert witnesses can double or triple their income, charging as much as £200 an hour. Some even “go private” because the pickings are so good.
Court appearances can be thrilling. Expert witnesses are often treated with respect by lawyers and judges and can even become minor celebrities.
But when experts get it wrong, there can be serious consequences. Last week national guidelines were published calling for judges to vet expert witnesses before they are allowed to give evidence.
The guidelines, from an inquiry chaired by Baroness Kennedy, were published after miscarriages of justice in which three mothers — Angela Cannings, Sally Clark and Trupti Patel — were wrongly accused of killing their babies. All three cases relied on expert evidence.
Since then, doctors who have offered opinions or given expert evidence in trials involving children’s safety have been investigated by the General Medical Council.
Apart from the fact that “expert” evidence may sometimes be plain wrong, many expert witnesses are poorly equipped to deal with courtroom appearances.
The greatest difficulty for many scientific and medical expert witnesses is, paradoxically, their training. Not only do they tend to speak in jargon and acronyms that make what they are saying impenetrable to the layman, they are also unused to being cross- examined.
All scientists deal with ambiguity and may favour one theory over another, but what lawyers want is certainty. This is often hard for expert witnesses to give and they can be flattered or bullied into giving an opinion that reflects their values as much as their knowledge.
And that can be a problem. Being an expert witness is a high-stakes game. A reputation built up over a lifetime can be destroyed by one mistake.
Being a good witness is a skill. Having “expert” knowledge is not enough. It is about being quick-witted and articulate; believable yet accurate. And being prepared to admit what you don’t know — even though you are the expert.
So I am not sure if it is cowardice or wisdom that leads me regularly to turn down opportunities to be an expert witness.
Adrian Furnham is professor of psychology at University College London
Source: Sunday Times 12.9.04
posted by Carole Spiers @ Tuesday, September 14, 2004
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home