3 ms·
I was involved once in a criminal forensics case. The defense's "expert" witness was a one man computer shop. He had created his own "certifications" and listed
by sathackr 10y ago
I was involved once in a criminal forensics case. The defense's "expert" witness was a one man computer shop. He had created his own "certifications" and listed them on his resumé as indications to the court of his suitability as a witness.
It was literally "person's-company-name Certified Forensic Examiner".
He had created about 6 certifications, all of which he held.
It's kinda funny, but also kinda scary that the court accepted this as proof of his qualifications. The prosecution never raised an objection to it either.
- logfromblammo 10y agoSo he got the court to accept a self-signed cert as a trusted root. I don't see how that's much different than asking someone to solemnly swear they are telling the truth, when most humans are as capable as lying about whether or not they are truthful as they are of lying about anything else. If the court has no one capable of gauging the expertise of a witness, it has to trust in someone to do that for them, and if neither party in the case objects to the witness certifying himself as an expert, it has no reason to gainsay that assertion. It's really the prosecutor's failure alone, for letting that detail slip past.
- watwut 10y agoSelf appointed experts should not be accepted by courts. That is what caused cluster fuck of bite mark non-science and fire non-science. The differente against lying is that you know when you lie. You dont know when you are overly confident but incompetent.
- ABCLAW 10y agoThe court has plenty of people capable of gauging the expertise of the witness, just not at that level. Impeaching credibility is not the job of the court - it is the job of the opposing party. If the other side of the case had an expert that didn't bring up the lack of credentials, or the litigators on the file didn't bother to do the most cursory of credibility impeachments, that's on them.
- cortesoft 10y agoThere is something very different about telling the truth and having knowledge. Everyone can tell the truth, but not everyone knows technical details about something. He is using his certifications to show he knows technical details; he might even believe he knows those things, but he very well could be wrong.
- cestith 10y agoHell, he may even be right. He might be a real expert. He doesn't make his claim to know things any more credible by way of vouching for himself even if he's an actual expert. Certifications sometimes set a terrible baseline, but at least it's an independent baseline.
- defined 10y agoI think requiring someone to swear to tell the truth is more a way to nail someone for perjury later than it is to make them tell the truth. It's like those immigration forms where they ask you if you have ever performed an act of terror (or somesuch). Nobody in their right mind is going to check the YES box, but if they find out later that you lied, it's much easier to charge you and jail or deport you.
- flukus 10y agoCan/did the other side bring this up? I may be watching too much suits, but it seems like an easy way to ruin the credibility of the witness.