3 ms·
This makes little sense. Certainly the court itself should be able to find some expert which weighs in on the matter as a third-party instead of letting the sid
by SZJX 10y ago
This makes little sense. Certainly the court itself should be able to find some expert which weighs in on the matter as a third-party instead of letting the sides involved spin their own stories? Would that be complicated?
- dragonwriter 10y agoIt's not complicated, it just means on disputed facts the courts selection of a single expert will decide the only viewpoint presented to the trier of fact (which might also be the court). I don't know why we would prefer that for general "background" facts that are in dispute which are relevant to evaluate the more direct facts of the case any more than we would for other types of evidence.