In courtrooms across our great nation, we witness a daily spectacle of "expert witnesses" taking the stand. As intimidating as this may seem, many of these so-called experts possess little more knowledge about the case at hand than an average citizen sitting in the audience. In the counties where I work, a recurring group of "expert witnesses" is routinely called upon by the District Attorney's Office, often to dispense a stream of statements that bear little relevance to the facts of the case. Unfortunately, it’s common for these experts to have minimal, if any, understanding of the trial they are involved in.
Consider, for example, a local psychologist who consistently appears on the State's Expert Witness List in sexual abuse cases. This psychologist is so favored that he is also brought in for drug and murder cases. I would describe him as nothing more than a hired gun—well-groomed, impeccably dressed, and eloquent. In fact, he has earned over $200,000 in 2022 and over $200,000 in 2023. With that kind of income, I could easily don a sharp suit and spout nonsense in front of an audience, convincing them of my expertise simply because I hold the title of "expert."
Jurors are often enamored by his/her polished presentation. However, anyone with a genuine understanding of the case will tell you that this psychologist frequently strays from the matter at hand, often beginning his responses to the State’s questions before they are fully articulated. He has mastered the art of saying what the State wants to hear and becomes defensive when challenged by the Defense Team. This pattern has been observed repeatedly. At times, he is referred to as a "Forensic Psychologist." However, the only individuals who genuinely know the intricacies of the case are the Defense Team, the DA's Office, the victim, and the defendant.
Yet, this so-called "Forensic Psychologist" is allowed to remain in the courtroom to "analyze witnesses," offering opinions on their truthfulness and potential mental disorders. Wait a second, so this Psychologist can get up on the stand and say what he says after listening to a witness testify for 15 or so minutes? Why do I refrain from labeling him/her a Forensic Psychologist? My research has led me to conclude that forensic psychology is often considered a soft science, heavily reliant on subjective assessments rather than rigorous testing. If this psychologist conducted proper evaluations involving standardized testing, interviews with the parties involved, and an understanding of cultural diversity, then I would be inclined to call him a Forensic Psychologist.
In a recent trial, I overheard this psychologist make an alarming statement about a young Black defendant, declaring, "He sold his soul to the devil." This young man had crossed paths with the psychologist when he was just 16 years old and in juvenile detention for an unrelated offense. Now, at 20, he was on trial for drug possession, yet the psychologist’s dramatic assertion was presented to the jury, who reacted with gasps of horror. If an "expert" claims it, it must be true, right? This young man received a 60-year prison sentence, and I firmly believe the psychologist's testimony played a crucial role in the jury's decision-making process.
Now, one might wonder: Can the Defense have their own psychologist? The answer is nuanced. Most of the cases I deal with involve indigent defendants who cannot afford an attorney, let alone a $5,000+ expert to conduct the thorough assessments that the State's hired gun should be performing. In such cases, the Defense Attorney must file a Motion and Order for an Expert with the court to secure a psychologist who can review evidence, interview the defendant and their family, and provide testimony during the trial, just like the State's expert. The Defense expert should be allowed and compensated to sit in the courtroom just like the State's expert. However, a common issue arises when the judge approves only a fraction of the amount the expert requests, which discourages the expert from taking on the case.
Since funding for the Defense expert comes from the Indigent Defense Fund, it falls on the court to approve this funding. However, each judge has their own stance on such requests, which can be a significant barrier.
So, how do we address this pressing issue? While it plagues our court system daily, the solution is relatively straightforward. As my father-in-law often says in the face of a problem, "We just need to come up with a solution." I propose that a hearing be held during the trial to assess what this psychologist has reviewed and what qualifies them as an expert in that particular case. Simply having a degree should not automatically grant someone the title of "expert."
Additionally, we should require these experts to justify their earnings. Just as I am obligated to submit a detailed invoice for my work, these experts should do the same. As a taxpayer, I believe that if they wish to receive compensation, they should provide a transparent account of the work they have performed. It’s only fair.
By implementing these changes, we can strive for a more equitable and informed judicial system, ensuring that the voices of true experts are heard and that justice is served.
Comments