Experts on trial

Re “When the witness is suspect,” editorial, March 30

Your editorial was right on target. Deputy Dist. Atty. Alan Jackson’s assessment of “pay-to-say” -- that attorneys only seek out expert witnesses who will support their cases -- is borne out in our courts on a daily basis.

My personal experience as an expert witness began in the 1960s. Attorneys who retained me did not always prevail, but I never testified for any attorney where evidence and facts did not favor his client. Attorneys lacking these ingredients had to be satisfied with my input as a consultant on how to question adversarial experts. My testimony would only hurt their cases.

The Australian method of “hot tubbing” seems the ideal way for a judge and/or jury to evaluate the merits of the case -- allowing the facts and evidence to outweigh the articulation and charm of either sides’ expert.

Robert E. Lowe

San Juan Capistrano

--

The Times does its readers a disservice with its diatribe against expert witnesses for the defense. I have practiced criminal defense for 35 years. In my experience, in a typical case, almost all expert witnesses are called by the prosecution. We get buried by the county coroner, dissected by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department criminalist and battered by the “domestic violence expert.”

Usually, we cannot afford to retain experts to rebut these people. We are reduced to arguing that because they are all employed by and paid by the county, their testimony naturally favors the prosecution. After guilty verdicts, jurors have told us that they were offended by our attacks on county workers.

Once every few years, a well-heeled defendant will have the resources to get his own experts to refute the prosecution twaddle. But instead of applauding a case in which the defense finally has a level playing field, The Times takes the opportunity to blast a system that allows paid experts.

Robert Sheahen

Beverly Hills