I loved my time working there. During my 1L summer I sat in over thirty depositions of experts and lay witnesses, I attended trials, mediations... it was the excitement I was looking for! But one thing that always struck me as odd (as a first generation law student with no knowledge of how this stuff works) was the function of expert witnesses.
I had no idea that people could be paid to testify, even if it was just compensation for their time. The whole concept struck me as very strange. Can we really trust expert witnesses to testify objectively about the medicine (or whatever their expertise is? Or are they inherently unreliable because they are hired and paid by one side of the "v"?
Hi Rylie,
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued by your post for a number of reasons. Medical malpractice is an area I am specifically interested in. Oftentimes, finding expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases can be challenging. Since the field of medicine in both complex and specialized, finding individuals with the requisite expertise in a particular area may be difficult. Moreover, many medical professionals might be hesitant to testify against their colleagues for fear of potential backlash within their industry. Furthermore, the legal criterai for expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases can be stringent in that individuals must meet specific qualifications and criteria.
To respond to your question regarding the reliability of expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases, I believe that they are likely to be reliable especially since they are being paid to testify. The stakes are relatively high for both sides, so I think that despite the fact that they are being paid reliability is a key factor to be considered for expert witnesses.
Hi Rylie,
ReplyDeleteI have long had the same hesitation as you mentioned here with regard to trusting expert witnesses. In a discussion I had once with someone on this topic, they commented that just as lawyers, judges, advisors, etc., an expert witness gets compensated for doing their job just like the rest of the working population. While I agree that expert witnesses, should be compensated for their time spent in court and time combing through the data, evidence, or whatever it may be, I do think bias is something to be aware of in situations where they are being called to testify for a "side." However, I do think the guidelines in place for expert witnesses, as well as the other side's ability to cross examine them and question their analyses works well to eliminate any glaring, and sometimes even subtle, biases at play.
Rylie,
ReplyDeleteI also had the same surprise when I learned of expert witnesses being paid for their testimony. I do understand that these witnesses are spending their time testifying for one side of the "v" as a professional in the area they are discussing and payment does seem reasonable due to them acting in their professional capacity. However, I think that this is also something that can come off odd, especially to a juror that is not as familiar with the legal system. While this is odd to me as well being in the legal profession, I can only imagine how odd it would be to a juror that may no know that paying an expert witness is typically a standard practice. Therefore, while I do understand why expert witnesses are paid for their time, I think it is something that is very odd and can seemed biased. Especially to jurors whether it be the juror believing whatever the paid expert witness says or if the juror does not want to believe the expert witness because they know they are paid by one side.