3 ms·

I wonder how much the lawyer is being paid for their expertise? Kind of rich to imply that the expert witness' motivation should be called into question when th

I wonder how much the lawyer is being paid for their expertise? Kind of rich to imply that the expert witness' motivation should be called into question when that question could even more easily be turned around on the lawyer. Why would we believe any of the facts of the matter laid out by a lawyer when their paycheck (and future paychecks) depends on the outcome of the case? In fact, the lawyer is paid to lay out the facts in as biased a manner as possible to convince the jury side with their client regardless of what actually happened. If a jury should be coached to disregard anyone during a trial, it's the lawyer.

Retric 4y ago
It’s assumed that each side’s lawyer(s) is biased, expert witnesses on the other side tend to be viewed as neutral even if only one side is paying them. That’s often abused in court cases which is one reason they can command such huge checks. Nobody is paying for an expert witness that helps the other side so a little bias one way or the other is helpful when pulling down those checks.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  I think it's worth pointing out even if it's "assumed." One should not cast stones from glass houses, and the jury needs to be reminded that a lawyer's framing of facts should be taken with a gigantic pinch of salt.
cool_dude85 4y ago
But everyone knows the lawyer for one of the parties in a trial is representing his party and is not some neutral observer. But expert witnesses are presented as essentially neutral experts making their own determinations on areas of expertise. Being explicit about the money paid to the expert makes the situation much more clear; not so for the lawyer.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  I disagree. If the lawyer is trying to call the process into question rather than addressing the facts, it's important to remind the jury of lawyer's questionable part of the process as well. Fallacious reasoning shouldn't stand in a courtroom.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Pointing out someone is in effect a highly paid actor is addressing the facts. Both the content of what was said and the manor in which they said it should be considered suspect.

Retric 4y ago

It’s assumed that each side’s lawyer(s) is biased, expert witnesses on the other side tend to be viewed as neutral even if only one side is paying them. That’s often abused in court cases which is one reason they can command such huge checks. Nobody is paying for an expert witness that helps the other side so a little bias one way or the other is helpful when pulling down those checks.

DangitBobby 4y ago
I think it's worth pointing out even if it's "assumed." One should not cast stones from glass houses, and the jury needs to be reminded that a lawyer's framing of facts should be taken with a gigantic pinch of salt.

cool_dude85 4y ago

But everyone knows the lawyer for one of the parties in a trial is representing his party and is not some neutral observer. But expert witnesses are presented as essentially neutral experts making their own determinations on areas of expertise. Being explicit about the money paid to the expert makes the situation much more clear; not so for the lawyer.

DangitBobby 4y ago
I disagree. If the lawyer is trying to call the process into question rather than addressing the facts, it's important to remind the jury of lawyer's questionable part of the process as well. Fallacious reasoning shouldn't stand in a courtroom.
- Retric 4y ago
  Pointing out someone is in effect a highly paid actor is addressing the facts. Both the content of what was said and the manor in which they said it should be considered suspect.