I’ve often said that I would never want to testify as an “expert witness” in any court proceeding, because I know going in that one side is lying to win their case. There is no way I will lie and use my standing as an expert to support the lie.
What Dookhan did is far worse than simply telling the story that the defense or prosecuting attorneys want told.
> I’ve often said that I would never want to testify as an “expert witness” in any court proceeding, because I know going in that one side is lying to win their case. There is no way I will lie and use my standing as an expert to support the lie.
Anyone that’s an expert knows there’s no such thing as an “expert” just someone who’s been at it a long time. Being called an expert implies that they are infallible which they are not.
Don't worry. At least in many jurisdictions, if you're actually expert at something, it's unlikely that you'll be called as an “expert witness.”
I'm aware of a case where the question is over the valuation of the intellectual property inherent in a piece of proprietary enterprise-level software and accompanying proprietary network hardware. The plaintiff's attorneys have proposed an expert witness who has run IT businesses since the 1980s, has developed and written software, has worked as a certified network engineer, and currently manages a staff of IT professionals.
The defense's argument to forbid the witness is that he's never qualified to be an expert witness in court before.
The defense's “expert witness” is a fellow who professionally serves as an IT expert witness. His primary living is made from selling insurance. He also salvages hardware, including IT hardware. But he's been “qualified” by courts previously as an IT expert witness, and thus, is automatically accepted as such.
Go figure.
sitetest