3 ms·

It's not only US. Many justice systems depend on direct witness or experts and expert who can say anything. Witness can be prosecuted for lying, experts not bec

by skirge 2y ago

It's not only US. Many justice systems depend on direct witness or experts and expert who can say anything. Witness can be prosecuted for lying, experts not because they only have opinions.

qingcharles 2y ago
That's why technically both sides should have experts. A lot of trials where experts are called devolve into simply a "battle of the experts" as the evidence is too close or too complicated. Sadly, the prosecution often has an unlimited budget for experts and the defendant often has zero. The judge can rule that the state put up some funds for a defense expert, but this is usually a fraction of the cost that the prosecution spend. Additionally, if you are being defended by a public defender or a cheap defense attorney then they will rarely file a motion for expert fees as they don't have the time to coordinate with an expert and go through the evidence to create a narrative for trial. Furthermore, lawyers are trained in the law, not in things like forensic science, so if your lawyer knows nothing about the techniques being used to convict you then they won't be able to adequately cross-examine the prosecution's expert nor question their own expert (if they have one).
- rossant 2y ago
  In France it's even worse as the State experts are assumed to be Right and there is no intended procedure for the defense to hire their own experts, at least not in a way where both sides would discuss on an equal foot. There's even an obscure article of the law stating that a trial can be adjourned if a witness contradicts a State expert that testified before them.
  - frenchman_in_ny 2y ago
    Though, unlike in the US, the investigators in France are required to seek evidence of both innocence and guilt [0]. So theoretically there's no need for defense experts. [0] https://www.justice.gouv.fr/justice-france/justice-penale/procedure-penale#:~:text=L'enqu%C3%AAte%20permet%20de%20rassembler,la%20personne%20mise%20en%20cause https://www.justice.gouv.fr/justice-france/justice-penale/pr....
    - rossant 2y ago
      That's the theory. According to my experience in these particular cases, that's rarely how it works in reality.
      - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
        And that's how the justice system breaks down. Prosecutors who pursue a matter with zeal because they can, not because they should. The outward sign of this most often is an emphasis on irrelevant but prejudicial talking points, such as the accused researching lawyers to represent them, or flying a private plane to the Super Bowl to participate in bawdy activities. It starts there and ends with an unjust execution because the police didn't like the way the accused looked at them.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  The public defenders' office should have the same amount of funding as public prosecutors'.
giantg2 2y ago
You could punish an expert, but you'd have to prove that they intentionally provided false info, which is nearly impossible to prove for opinions unless you can prove some form of collusion or get a confession.

by skirge 2y ago

It's not only US. Many justice systems depend on direct witness or experts and expert who can say anything. Witness can be prosecuted for lying, experts not because they only have opinions.

qingcharles 2y ago

That's why technically both sides should have experts. A lot of trials where experts are called devolve into simply a "battle of the experts" as the evidence is too close or too complicated. Sadly, the prosecution often has an unlimited budget for experts and the defendant often has zero. The judge can rule that the state put up some funds for a defense expert, but this is usually a fraction of the cost that the prosecution spend. Additionally, if you are being defended by a public defender or a cheap defense attorney then they will rarely file a motion for expert fees as they don't have the time to coordinate with an expert and go through the evidence to create a narrative for trial. Furthermore, lawyers are trained in the law, not in things like forensic science, so if your lawyer knows nothing about the techniques being used to convict you then they won't be able to adequately cross-examine the prosecution's expert nor question their own expert (if they have one).

rossant 2y ago
In France it's even worse as the State experts are assumed to be Right and there is no intended procedure for the defense to hire their own experts, at least not in a way where both sides would discuss on an equal foot. There's even an obscure article of the law stating that a trial can be adjourned if a witness contradicts a State expert that testified before them.
- frenchman_in_ny 2y ago
  Though, unlike in the US, the investigators in France are required to seek evidence of both innocence and guilt [0]. So theoretically there's no need for defense experts. [0] https://www.justice.gouv.fr/justice-france/justice-penale/procedure-penale#:~:text=L'enqu%C3%AAte%20permet%20de%20rassembler,la%20personne%20mise%20en%20cause https://www.justice.gouv.fr/justice-france/justice-penale/pr....
  - rossant 2y ago
    That's the theory. According to my experience in these particular cases, that's rarely how it works in reality.
    - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
      And that's how the justice system breaks down. Prosecutors who pursue a matter with zeal because they can, not because they should. The outward sign of this most often is an emphasis on irrelevant but prejudicial talking points, such as the accused researching lawyers to represent them, or flying a private plane to the Super Bowl to participate in bawdy activities. It starts there and ends with an unjust execution because the police didn't like the way the accused looked at them.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
The public defenders' office should have the same amount of funding as public prosecutors'.

giantg2 2y ago

You could punish an expert, but you'd have to prove that they intentionally provided false info, which is nearly impossible to prove for opinions unless you can prove some form of collusion or get a confession.