Experts

 

I Am The Walrus

 

Expert, texpert choking smokers

Don't you think the joker laughs at you (Ho ho ho, hee hee hee, hah hah hah)
See how they smile like pigs in a sty

See how they snide

I'm crying

What is an expert?

Expert witness have been very much in the news  in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial. Having been an expert witness myself a few times, it worked out well once and worked out, IMHO, poorly four other times. Given that I have a pathological aversion to judging or being judged, it was probably inevitable that I had bad experiences. I find it cathartic to blog about my experiences.

A trial is supposed to be about determining the truth. An expert witness is supposed to elaborate on the truth. But how does one become an expert? And if there are experts on each side, and one side is not telling the truth, how do you tell if an expert is telling the truth?

I naively felt that each expert should speak the truth and the court would decide what is the truth. As I said that was naïve. The court does not have expertise on many matters. It instead looks at the credentials of those who are being presented as experts. That was my first experience. The case concerned the use of a computer program, which I had written. The first expert, who I believed had misused my program, testified. When I was on the stand, I was not asked about my program. I was asked if I was a registered Professional Engineer or if I had any other credentials. I did not, and I was dismissed from the stand before I had a chance to discuss my program. I took immediate steps to get a license as a PE. I was eligible to get a license, I just had naively thought the truth was more important than any credentials.

The second court case, (actually a city council meeting)  is where I was prepared to testify when the client came out stating that the matter had been already settled and no testimony was necessary. In this case the truth took a back seat to a back-room deal.

The fifth time as an expert witness ( the fourth time was the one that went well), ironically where the opposing expert was the very one from my first court case a decade earlier. In reviewing his report, I pointed out to my client’s legal team that a fundamental math error had been made. On cross examination of that expert, my client’s lawyer asked him about this. Because of this error the judge struck his testimony and his report from the trial record,  and I did not testify because there was no longer anything to refute. I did get the feeling of Karma in seeing his report and testimony dismissed, but the truth again took a back seat to credentials.

The final time I was an expert witness, I had what I thought was a professional  disagreement with the opposing expert. I was first on the stand and the opposing expert was second. During her cross examination not only was what I thought was an inconsistency pointed out, but her ethics and motives in making her assumptions were questioned. I was so shaken I wrote to the “opposing” expert to apologize.

Experts are not there to present the truth. Their reputations and credentials will be judged to determine whether they are telling the truth. Their motives, which are IMHO irrelevant to the truth, i.e. the facts, will be questioned. It is just as the humorist Carl Sandburg put it” “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you., argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” A plague on both your houses.