Expert Witness Research Paper

Expert Witness
The expert witness is expected to have many criteria making him or her eligible to give their expert advice, opinion, or findings on a subject matter of which they have specialized knowledge better than that of the average person. The expert witness also needs to be relevant in the case, so having a doctor of child psychology wouldn’t be relevant giving an expert opinion on an insurance fraud case. Typically an expert witness is called in to aid the judge or jury to be better prepared and knowledgeable to understand the case and to ultimately reach a decision.
When discussing the term ‘Expert Witness’ it is a typical response to think of a doctor in field such as Psychology, but in reality, it may vary to experts in such
fields as a garage mechanic who could give an expert opinion on why a certain car might have malfunctioned. The basic criterion an expert needs is advanced and recent knowledge of his specialized subject of study. Due to their recent hike in divorce cases, lawyers with a psychology background are often being seen in court giving their opinions on child custody. Considering there are many effects on the children before, after and during divorce and chills custody lawsuits, an expert witness’s opinion is of good use to a judge considering custody and visitation given to each of the parents. In each field of study, there are subfields, for example in the field of psychology, there are many subfields including criminal profiling, competence of a person in trial, abuse in adults and children (which divides again into sexual, physical, mental, and so on), divorce and child custody, etcetera.
An expert witness should, according to the advice given from Samuel G. Fredman, be prepared, provide your expert opinion, and reflect objectivity (1995). This would mean to be ready on giving your view on the subject, prove to the judge that you know the field well, possibly mention what you would do in this situation, and have a neutral and unbiased view. The responsibility of an expert witness in court could mean life and death in serious cases. Their opinion has the ability to change the lives if the people involved in the trial. It happens often that by finding, for example, one parent better suited for the child than the other, that the un-chosen parent will develop a hatred feeling for the psychologist even though it is his duty to give an opinion of un-biased and thoroughly studied evidence.
Educated opinions are too heavily relied on in court and when an expert witness testifies, he is giving his educated opinion.
With this opinion, the jury is to then make a decision on the topic being discussed for which they needed en expert witness to testify in order to fully understand what the pros and cons were for the competing sides of the defendant and plaintiff. Sometimes the opinion can be based on facts and evidence that was found, but even in these cases, people have the ability to perceive it according to a preconceived thought. Although expert witnesses are supposed to be unbiased, there is no such human that could be one-hundred percent completely unbiased in giving an opinion. With understanding this concept, one may find that the jury, judge and possibly the whole courtroom may have their thoughts tainted by the expert’s opinion if the case is in a field of study not well known to the general public. From my understanding, there are few cases that rule against an expert’s opinion in a trial. This may be because the expert witness system is very valuable or possibly manipulating. Although the expert is skilled with expertise, training and exceptional knowledge in certain fields, I think that being a regular person whom is not as well educated in those fields would agree with the opinion of an “expert” much easier than if they had a preconceived and educated opinion of their own, due to past learning or personal experiences. Therefore the expert witnesses are
relied on too much if the topic of debate is widely unknown or very difficult for the judge or jury to comprehend. The judge and jury make the ultimate decision; therefore it must be taken into account that the opinion of the expert witness may not always be the ‘right’ decision.
It is expected that the expert witness give impartial and objective opinion while being unbiased and true.
Everyone’s thoughts and actions are influenced by their beliefs and opinions because being biased a natural human way. It’s possible to know both sides of the topic you're discussing. It’s extremely hard, actually impossible to be completely unbiased. Having an unbiased opinion is an oxymoron at its best. The fact that some expert witnesses can give an opinion with the most minimal biases is a gift. Many people are opinionated and so having the ability to not let your biases lead you through an opinion is rare and hard to
accomplish.
Room for improvement can be found where an expert witness can testify without having been a physical witness to any exposure that is directly related to the case, even though the expert is qualified by evidence of expertise, training and special knowledge. This would mean that the expert doesn’t have to thoroughly understand the specifics of the case but can still affect the decision that the court will make. This may be an advantage to some cases like an insanity plea but can also be a disadvantage. An example of a disadvantage would be when a woman has been battered in the family home and then files for a divorce, but is ruled as an unfit mother due to the anxiety caused by being beat. The expert witness may be an expert on divorce and custody cases but might not understand and be knowledgeable about the effects on battered women. My point here is that many different events could lead up to an unfair trial, but of course this is not the expert’s fault. It could be seen as a loop-hole or weakness in the law system, from which I understand, there are several. I believe that the expert witness system could fine tune some areas but overall, it works well in aiding the process of justice.