Well, what I mean is that the fact that they are getting paid to say whatever will help whichever side is paying them, makes it hard for me sometimes to trust what they say. Because they know they wouldn't get paid otherwise. If they don't assure the attorneys that what they say will meet their approval, then the attorneys will say no thank you and ask some other expert who WILL promise to say only what the attorneys want said.
In any other setting, this would give any reasonable person cause to be skeptical about the testimony of an expert paid witness. This is only logical and should be easy to see why. When we hear a celebrity touting some product, we want to know if they've been paid to do so. In fact, I think it's the law that they have to disclose that fact if they are. And if we know they are, reasonable people are more skeptical about the truth of their claims. This is common and expected and makes sense.
But when it comes to the courtroom, we're supposed to throw out all our reasonable skepticism and believe what they say, despite knowing that their compensation depends entirely on them saying only what the attorneys agreed they could say. If the expert has a different opinion on the subject, they are not invited to be a paid expert. In fact, we also know that if the expert were getting paid by the opposing attorneys, their testimony would be totally different. So I have to wonder how I'm supposed to put any faith in what the paid experts say, and that goes for experts on either side.
But this is especially true when it becomes clear that a particular expert's opinion and testimony is not in line with the majority of other professionals in their field. In other words, if it seems that this person is the only one who would testify the way the attorneys who paid them wanted. If it would be hard to find other experts who agree with them, I'm going to assume that this expert is only saying this to get paid, and I can rightfully discount this testimony. If their testimony is in line with what the majority of other professionals in their field say, I wouldn't have a problem with them, even knowing they're being paid. So it requires a little extra effort and research with each paid testimony, to know whether or not this expert is credible. In Dr. Chudru's case, admittedly I'm no expert myself, but from reports I've read about others views on what he testified about, it sounds like he is alone or in a minority at least of people in the field who think the way he said he does. I don't think it's commonly accepted by experts that JN's death could have been caused by his exertional sickling and not by DP's chokehold. I can't help but feel like the only reason the doctor said this was because he was being paid by the defense to say it. In fact, I don't think Dr Chudru even actually believes this.
ny1.com
