You Don't Say...

In a recent article, In U.S., Partisan Expert Witnesses Frustrate Many, The New York Times explores a subject that we frequently discuss with our clients: The tendency for plaintiff and defense expert witnesses to "cancel each other out."

Judge Denver D. Dillard was trying to decide whether a slow-witted Iowa man accused of acting as a drug mule was competent to stand trial. But the conclusions of the two psychologists who gave expert testimony in the case, Judge Dillard said, were “polar opposites.”

One expert, who had been testifying for defendants for 20 years, said the accused, Timothy M. Wilkins, was mentally retarded and did not understand what was happening to him. Mr. Wilkins’s verbal I.Q. was 58, the defense expert said.

The prosecution expert, who had testified for the state more than 200 times, said that Mr. Wilkins’s verbal I.Q. was 88, far above the usual cutoffs for mental retardation, and that he was perfectly competent to stand trial.

Judge Dillard, of the Johnson County District Court in Iowa City, did what American
judges and juries often do after hearing from dueling experts: he threw up his hands. The two experts were biased in favor of the parties who employed them, the judge said, and they had given predictable testimony. “The two sides have canceled each other out,” Judge Dillard wrote in 2005, refusing to accept either expert’s conclusion and complaining that “no funding mechanism exists for the court to appoint an expert.”

This really shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Most jurors are fairly adept at following the money and forming common sense conclusions about bias.

In most instances, expert witnesses for both sides boast credentials in education, training, and relevant experience--with neither being more credible than the other (on paper at least). We find that jurors, driven by the common sense perception experts will cater testimony to support the side signing their check, often find that paid experts don't carry much sway. Jurors instead tend to focus on personality traits, whether the witness educates jurors in "plain english," and even tie colors and mannerisms when assigning credibility.

I found this amusing. The expert witness for the state provided a telling quote describing the experience:

“After you come out of court,” Dr. Welsh said, “you feel like you need a shower. They’re asking you to be certain of things you can’t be certain of.”

Another colorful quote:

“To put it bluntly, in many professions, service as an expert witness is not considered honest work,” Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in the Wisconsin Law Review. “The contempt of lawyers and judges for experts is famous. They regularly describe expert witnesses as prostitutes.”

And another zinger:

Martin Belli, the famed trial lawyer, endorsed this view. “If I got myself an impartial witness,” he once said, “I’d think I was wasting my money.”

This article strongly supports a sentiment we often share with clients, especially in medical malpractice cases: Expert witnesses mainly serve to support a jurors' initial perception of the case facts--and rarely influence jurors to switch to the other side.

Therefore, tapping into juror predispositions--the biases they are likely to walk into the courtroom with--and shaping expert testimony to conform to those preloads, is where legal teams should focus most of their energy. Relying on an expert witness, regardless of their impressive credentials or background, to turn the tides of juror sentiment, is fraught with risks given the likelihood for opposing witnesses to "cancel each other out."

Read the entire article...