tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post8297412230872466721..comments2024-01-25T14:51:13.377-05:00Comments on Gamso - For the Defense: None Dare Call It BullshitJeff Gamsohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-45261235198528028772012-09-16T00:13:43.266-04:002012-09-16T00:13:43.266-04:00I served on a jury for a civil case about an emine...I served on a jury for a civil case about an eminent domain seizure in which a property owner was contesting the value that the county said his land was worth. The meat of the argument came down to expert testimony from each side's real estate appraisers, and it was practically impossible for the jurors the know which appraiser's valuation was more realistic. As you might expect, the county spent quite a bit of time denouncing the credibility of the citizen's appraiser and his methods. But the citizen's attorney demolished the county's case with a single question to his expert witness ... "how many times has the county used you as THEIR expert witness for real estate valuations in the past". Dozens of times. I hope the property owner was happy with the outcome.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-69014752146265759252012-09-14T01:20:30.835-04:002012-09-14T01:20:30.835-04:00If we ever want the jury process to produce more a...If we ever want the jury process to produce more accurate results in this type of case than an opinion poll or an election, we must have jurors who can evaluate the science themselves. I would like to see a rule that in any case that hinges on a scientific theory such as "product X caused my client's cancer", at least four of the 12 jurors must be credentialed experts in the relevant field of inquiry, and most of those expert members must concur in any verdict for the plaintiff.jdgalthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13236899779621301830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-70326834795382353902012-09-10T15:55:33.465-04:002012-09-10T15:55:33.465-04:00Sure, you can find a whore (though unless you'...Sure, you can find a whore (though unless you've got unlimited resources, you really can't go from person to person to person until you stumble across one.) But it's a lousy tactic that will mostly come back to bite you, won't do your client any good. And I hate to break this to you, but the government sometimes cheats and doesn't reveal the information it's supposed to. Shocking, I know.<br /><br />Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-8015196412508164632012-09-10T14:32:53.009-04:002012-09-10T14:32:53.009-04:00Actually, any defense lawyer worth his salt know h...Actually, any defense lawyer worth his salt know he can consult expert after expert until he finds the one willing to support the defense theory. And you don't have to disclose that you settled on that one only after the first six told you what you didn't want to hear -- a real boon to the defense, which (unlike the prosecution) has no duty to disclose experts who reject your position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-44625580838814705522012-09-09T22:11:33.600-04:002012-09-09T22:11:33.600-04:00Verdict first - trial afterwards, as the Queen did...Verdict first - trial afterwards, as the Queen did not quite say.Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-71483722696820097482012-09-09T10:11:31.014-04:002012-09-09T10:11:31.014-04:00I remember the first time I heard a prosecutor arg...I remember the first time I heard a prosecutor argue that if the court didn't allow him to elicit the challenged testimony, he would be unable to prove his case. Involuntary laughter emitted from my mouth. The judge then corrected him and stated, "don't you mean that you are seeking to introduce this as background evidence, and not for the truth of the matter, counsellor?"<br /><br />Yes. That's what he meant. Exactly. shghttp://blog.simplejustice.usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-47682866766645267652012-09-08T20:45:39.883-04:002012-09-08T20:45:39.883-04:00It's the rule that says if it helps show the d...It's the rule that says if it helps show the defendant is a bad guy it's admissible. It's in the invisible ink footnote to the Sixth Amendment.Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-27766492776712852172012-09-08T20:40:26.714-04:002012-09-08T20:40:26.714-04:00When I wrote that comment, I actually had in mind ...When I wrote that comment, I actually had in mind some of your earlier comments about fingerprint examiners. I guess that could be incompetence rather than lies.<br /><br />I was also thinking about gang cops, who testify that the defendant was wearing gang colors, a gang hat, gang socks, had multiple cell phones as gang members are known to do, spinning rims on his car, listened to gangsta rap... I don't know how that stuff gets in...Windypundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01788171819370012437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-697100744449740272012-09-08T20:27:15.120-04:002012-09-08T20:27:15.120-04:00I'm not sure it's lying. More like giving...I'm not sure it's lying. More like giving limited answers. They don't talk about error rates and variances unless they're asked or it will help their side, and too often they're not asked. <br /><br />On the other hand, the legal measure with which they're supposed to state their conclusions, is that they're true "to a reasonable degree of [scientific/medical/engineering/whatever] certainty." Not beyond a reasonable doubt.<br /><br />On the third hand, fingerprint examiners, who have no error rates because their purported expertise has never been properly evaluated, will frequently claim that their conclusions are absolutely correct. I've heard more than one say that when he's convinced, it's simply not possible for him to be wrong. Sad to say, they're probably not lying when they say that. They actually believe in their own infallibility. (I suspect that's what they're taught by their trainers.)Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-22523753739045066612012-09-08T19:43:27.903-04:002012-09-08T19:43:27.903-04:00As a science-and-engineering type guy, the prospec...As a science-and-engineering type guy, the prospect of dueling experts fills me with existential angst. I mean, science and engineering, those aren't squishy fields of knowledge. We have known facts and right answers. So how does stuff like this happen?<br /><br />My gut reaction, based on how things usually work outside the courtroom, is that there is rather a lot more lying than you allow for. Not so much lying about the facts or the science or even about the expert's conclusions, but about the degree of <em>certainty</em> in those conclusions. One expert may look at a depressed skull fracture and think "eh...auto accident," and the other expert may look at the same fracture and think "hmm...baseball bat." But my guess is that -- far more often than they admit -- they aren't really certain beyond a reasonable doubt.Windypundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01788171819370012437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-21686096626137814662012-09-08T10:37:33.213-04:002012-09-08T10:37:33.213-04:00We look to experts because jurors aren't compe...<i>We look to experts because jurors aren't competent</i> insert period and continue with the rest of the essay.<br /><br />The real miracle is that the system isn't in worse shape than it is already. Get some poor fool in front of a jury that has more tattoos than teeth and it's little wonder that they can't come to a rational decision.<br /><br />And the business with the experts? Spare me. You go and find a real scientific expert on whatever subject you like. I'll find an out of work, red hot actress, get her some credentials from an on line university in Panama and train her in what to say and how to out argue an attorney - which isn't all that hard for her, given that she's prettier than a Spring day in a Norman Rockwell painting and hotter than a five dollar pistol on Saturday night - and the jury will stop listening to your side just as soon as she parks her cute little caboose on the hot seat.<br /><br />And, in case it escapes you, most expert witnesses are uglier than the back end of a Tijuana Taxi. The real ones, anyway.<br /> Mad Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06190137186843630543noreply@blogger.com