Expert witnesses in criminal trials are one of the best examples of the inequality in our criminal justice system. Criminal defendants who can afford to hire the best attorneys that money can buy can also afford to hire the best expert witnesses that money can buy. The vast majority of criminal defendants can neither afford a good attorney, nor an expert witness. In many instancs, the poor are flushed down the criminal justice system's toilet. In jurisdictions that fund a Public Defender system, the poor are likely to get a better defense than in a system of court appointed attorneys.
In cases where an expert witness could be helpful to a defendant, the Public Defender's office may not always have enough funds to obtain expert testimony. Except in capital cases, court appointed attorneys are notorious for providing only the most minimal defense allowed under the law. More often than not, they encourage their clients to accept a plea bargain, not because that is best for their client, but so they can get another appointment sooner. Worse yet, many court appointed attorneys are so inept that the only way these BOTTOM FEEDERS can make a living as lawyers is to hustle for such appointments.
Expert witnesses, in both criminal and civil trials, are often referred to as "Hired Guns" because they usually hire themselves out to the highest bidder in our adverserial judicial system. I prefer to call them JUDICIAL WHORES, because that is what they are. For criminal cases, there are established lists of experts who will testify favorably for the prosecution and lists of those who will testify favorably for the defemse. Of course, there are those who will testify for either side, depending on who offeres them the most money. These judicial whores do not come cheap, with many commanding more than $400 per hour, including research and preparation time in addition to time on the witness stand, plus all of their travel, lodging, and meal expenses.
There are many kinds of expert witnesses for both criminal and civil cases. Just to name a few, there are those in medicine, structural engineering, accident reconstruction, chemistry, physics, income loss, long-term care, etc.. In medicine alone, there are experts for every specialty, such as forensic pathologists, surgeons, Ob-Gyn physicans, neurologists, orthopedists, plastic surgeons, and of course, psychiatrists. In the O. J. Simpson trial, there was contradictory testimony given by prominent forensic pathologists and by prominent forensic scientists, depending on whether they were paid by the prosecution or by the defense.
The psychiatrists, as well as psychologists, are the worst of the judicial whores, testifying for the prosecution that the defendant is sane or testifying for the defense that he is insane. If medicine is an art, then PSYCHIATRY IS A FANTASY. When Sirhan Sirhan was tried for the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, there was so much conflicting testimony by the psychiatric experts, that the jury wanted it entered into the trial record that they were thoroughly disgusted by it and considered it absolutely worthless.
The Andrea Yates case is another example ot the psychiatric shenanigans perpetrated by these judical whores. During the first trial the defense presented several psychiatrists and psychologists, all of whom testified that Yates did not know right from wrong, the Texas standard for insanity, when she drowned her five children in a bathtub. The prosecution relied mostly on the testimony of Park Dietz, a California-based psychiatrist who has not practiced psychiatry for 25 years and who earns his living strictly by testifying as an expert witness for prosecutors. Dr. Dietz has testified for the prosecution in the trials of John Hinckley (for attempting to assassinate President Reagan), "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, and serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, as well as in many other headline-making trials.
In the first Yates trial, Dr. Dietz testfied that Andrea got the idea for killing her children, and how to get away with it, by watching a TV episode of "Law and Order" in which a mother was found not guilty by reason of insanity after drowning her children. The only problem with that testimony was that there never was any such episode. Because of Dr. Dietz's false testimony, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned her conviction and ordered a new trial. In the second trial, Dr. Dietz again testified that Yates knew that killing her children was wrong, contrary to the testimony given by the defendant's mental health experts. Ironically, in between the two Yates trials, Dr. Dietz testified at the trial of a nearly identical case in Northeast Texas.
In May 2003, Deanna Laney bludgeoned her children with a stone, killing her six and eight year old sons and critically injuring her 14 year old son. Both Yates and Laney had a long history of psychotic episodes prior to the killings. Both reported the killings to the police by calling "911." The only differences in the two cases were the method of killing and that Yates claimed the Devil told her to do it, while Laney claimed that God told her to do it. The Smith County District Attorney, knowing in advance how Dr. Dietz would testify, nevertheless called him to the witness stand where he testified that Laney was "crazy" because she did not know right from wrong. Apparently, Dr. Dietz believes you are sane if the Devil tells you to kill your children, but you are crazy if God tells you to do it.
In both Yates trials the prosecutors, unlike the District Attorney in Smith County, were hell-bent on obtaining a death sentence in the first trial and a life sentence in the second trial. (Since she was sentenced to life in the first trial, the prosecution was barred from seeking the death penalty in the second one.) In the second trial the prosecution again relied on Dr. Dietz's expert testimony, as well as that of Dr. Michael Weiner, a psychiatrist from New York. Dr Dietz was paid a total of $142,000 for his testimony in both trials.
It is alleged that Dr. Weiner first approached the defense and offered to testify that Yates was insane. When the defense refused to meet his price, he turned around and offered his services to the prosecution. Unaware of his overtures to the defense, the prosecution called Dr. Weiner to the stand where he testified that Yates knew the drownings were wrong and that she was motivated to kill the children by her selfish needs. If, as alleged, he solicited both sides in the Yates case, offering each the testimony he believed they wanted, Dr. Weiner is a shoo-in to win the RED LANTERN, my award for the JUDICIAL WHORE OF THE YEAR. Dr Weiner and his consulting firm were paid $242,966.74 for their work in the second trial.
Is there a way that we can level the playing field between the rich and the poor in our criminal justice system? One way would be to establish a Public Defender's office in every judicial jurisdiction, thereby eliminating the court appointed "bottom feeders." A Public Defender's office, like those in several states and that with the federal government, is funded in the same way as a District Attorney's office. Thus, the Public Defender's office would be staffed with conscientious attorneys and investigators, and be funded to hire expert witnesses which, except for capital cases, are not likely to be available for the defense of indigents under a system of court appointed attorneys.
In order to provide real equality in the criminal justice system, it is just as important to eliminate the present system of hiring expert witnesses. The state legislatures should pass a law to establish a STATE POOL of distinguished experts who are willing to serve if needed in criminal trials. This pool would be chosen by a commission appointed by the Governor, consisting of the Attorney General, a State Senator, a State Representative, a judge, a District Attorney, and a Public Defender or prominent defense attorney. The expert witnesses in the pool would be put on a generous annual retainer funded by the state. Their expenses for travel, lodging, and meals would be paid for by the court wherein they testified. They would receive no other compensation for testifying. Neither the prosecution nor the defense would be allowed to use their own expert witnesses.
With such a pool in place, if the judge trying a criminal case has been convinced that an outside expert witness is needed to interpret crime scene evidence and police laboratory analyses, he would select only one expert from each specialty, subject to the approval of both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. The jury would be advised that the court has determined that the case requires the services of an expert witness and that the expert is testifying for the court, and not for the prosecution or for the defense. This system would not only level the playing field, but it would free a jury of having to decide which contradictory expert testimony is correct, as is the case with the current "hired gun" system.
The jury in a criminal case should never be placed in the position of having to decide whether a defendant was sane or insane, based on the contradictory testimony given by mental health experts who were hired by each side in the trial. Nor should a jury of lay persons be subjected to conflicting scientific and technical testimony from experts paid by one side or the other. In criminal cases, equal justice for all would best be served by providing the poor with good attorneys and by eliminating the current practice of hiring the best experts that money can buy. It is high time for us to throw the Judicial Whores out of the Criminal Justice system.
No comments:
Post a Comment