4 ms·

Grossly oversimplifying it, but it is what my lawyer uncles say, and is consistent with what I saw as a juror on a civil trial involving many topics I'm persona

Grossly oversimplifying it, but it is what my lawyer uncles say, and is consistent with what I saw as a juror on a civil trial involving many topics I'm personally an expert in, expert witnesses are paid to lie on the stand. At the very least they are paid very very well (the amount they were paid was emphasized at the trial I was at) to state only the information consistent with what the person paying them wanted to them to say, regardless of whether they know information that would be more helpful to the other side.

kspacewalk2 6y ago
Of course this is the case, but rather than lying, I think it is only a consequence of selection bias. You don't see the experts rejected by the prosecution (or defence) for opinions that aren't helpful, because of course they won't be invited to testify.
AS37 6y ago
> At the very least they are paid very very well... to state only the information consistent with what the person paying them wanted to them to say Anecdotally, if you replace 'paid' with 'incentivized' my understanding is the same. And here's a totally unrelated Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
They answer any question put to them. The defense has to ask the right questions of course. I know expert witnesses. They are of impeccable character, and will seek to educate as well as they are allowed.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  You know some expert witnesses. I doubt you have a good acquaintance of a significant percentage of all expert witnesses.
- salamanderman 6y ago
  The experience I had, which was pretty cool (although the case overall was very very depressing) in that we the jury were allowed to anonymously submit questions for the judge to ask the witnesses as well."They answer any question put to them." definitely did not apply to all of them. There were many, painful to watch, who at best gave half answers. I'd say the expert witness in the movie "my cousin Vinny" who testifies that the tire marks between the two cars are identical and that it is possible for both cars to have made the tire marks, while knowing that it was literally impossible for the defendants car to make the marks on the road, is very very close to what I saw experts do. In my case it was dumber, though. We had experts talking about how far a driver can see to recognize that a pedestrian is walking across a road and all of his citations were referencing daylight illumination. Thankfully, us jurors were able ask questions like "All of your citations are for daylight illumination. You know this case is about an accident at 3am and the streetlights were broken. What's the distance in that case?" And they would answer that question appropriately, but I didn't consider it impeccable character that they had acted all the while up to that point like the numbers they were giving were for the conditions of the case. And yes, they would always say they were familiar with the conditions of the case before answering any questions, so I generally felt is was lying by omission.

kspacewalk2 6y ago

Of course this is the case, but rather than lying, I think it is only a consequence of selection bias. You don't see the experts rejected by the prosecution (or defence) for opinions that aren't helpful, because of course they won't be invited to testify.

AS37 6y ago

> At the very least they are paid very very well... to state only the information consistent with what the person paying them wanted to them to say Anecdotally, if you replace 'paid' with 'incentivized' my understanding is the same. And here's a totally unrelated Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baden

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

They answer any question put to them. The defense has to ask the right questions of course. I know expert witnesses. They are of impeccable character, and will seek to educate as well as they are allowed.

tsimionescu 6y ago
You know some expert witnesses. I doubt you have a good acquaintance of a significant percentage of all expert witnesses.
salamanderman 6y ago
The experience I had, which was pretty cool (although the case overall was very very depressing) in that we the jury were allowed to anonymously submit questions for the judge to ask the witnesses as well."They answer any question put to them." definitely did not apply to all of them. There were many, painful to watch, who at best gave half answers. I'd say the expert witness in the movie "my cousin Vinny" who testifies that the tire marks between the two cars are identical and that it is possible for both cars to have made the tire marks, while knowing that it was literally impossible for the defendants car to make the marks on the road, is very very close to what I saw experts do. In my case it was dumber, though. We had experts talking about how far a driver can see to recognize that a pedestrian is walking across a road and all of his citations were referencing daylight illumination. Thankfully, us jurors were able ask questions like "All of your citations are for daylight illumination. You know this case is about an accident at 3am and the streetlights were broken. What's the distance in that case?" And they would answer that question appropriately, but I didn't consider it impeccable character that they had acted all the while up to that point like the numbers they were giving were for the conditions of the case. And yes, they would always say they were familiar with the conditions of the case before answering any questions, so I generally felt is was lying by omission.