Expert Testimony Reliability Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Expert Testimony Reliability - Case Study Example Incompetent experts in criminal cases might be more newsworthy, but surveyors in civil courts face the same pressures. Last year, Geoffrey Wright, of EA Shaw, and I discussed the important role that expert witnesses have to play in dispute resolution (EG 23 July 2005, p90). The General Medical Council had just held that the evidence given by Professor Sir Roy Meadow at the criminal trial of Sally Clarke was "naà ¯ve, grossly misleading, incompetent and careless". He was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and stripped of his licence to practice. On 17 February, Collins J ruled that Professor Meadow had acted "honestly and in good faith": see Meadows v General Medical Council [2006] EWHC 146 (Admin); [2006] 09 EG 182 (CS). The appeal was allowed on the basis that his conduct should not have exposed him to such a sanction. In the same week, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, announced new measures designed to ensure that expert witnesses in criminal trials give their ob jective opinion only and do not act as advocates. Expert witnesses will have to reveal all of their evidence, and its source, to investigating police. They will also have to declare anything "that might adversely affect their credibility or competence as an expert witness "and must "not give expert opinion beyond their area of expertise". In contrast to a liberal admissibility view, Paul Milich maintains that "the jury's obvious limitations in evaluating complex scientific disputes cannot be overcome by the mythically powerful tools of cross-examination and closing argument." 2 He suggests that it may be over-hasty to assume that an adversarial proceeding will succeed in enabling a jury to understand scientific testimony satisfactorily. According to Mulch, when jurors are presented with complex scientific issues, they might choose to ignore these issues and make a decision based on other factors, such as an expert's physical appearance and his/her demeanor. Mulch's argument seems pl ausible because jurors might have to resort to this alternative if they really do not understand the proffered testimony. Since judges and juries do not share a common base of experience with an expert witness on the specialized matters being discussed in his/her testimony, they can have a difficult time probing into and evaluating the expert's reasoning and opinions. The accessibility of proffered claims can vary greatly depending on a number of factors, some of which were mentioned previously. The subject matter of some expert testimony can be inherently confusing, if not unintelligible, to laypersons. To return to a point made before, one