"BOTTOM LINE - JUDGES AND LAWYERS IN BOTH THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEXT OUGHT NOT FEIGN SURPRISE THAT DR.SMITH (AND A TON OF OTHERS JUST LIKE HIM) THOUGHT HIS JOB WAS TO STRATEGICALLY SHAPE HIS EXPERT TESTIMONY SO AS TO WIN THE CASES IN WHICH HE PROFFERED OPINIONS FOR THE CROWN/POLICE.
HOW COULD IT BE OTHERWISE?
THE IRONY HERE IS THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE MYTH OF THE OBJECTIVE EXPERT - DR. SMITH IS THE ONLY "MEDICOLEGAL EXPERT" TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW THE EXPERT OPINION BUSINESS WORKS IN ONTARIO."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of our readers put the spot-light on the objectivity of experts in
Ontario's courts in a letter bearing the heading, "The fallacy of the
non-partisan medico-legal expert who acts as a "friend of the court"
I am presenting this letter for the benefit of all of our readers with
the writer's consent. Thanks Brian!
"Ontario courts both criminal and civil, the AG, the crown, plaintiff
lawyers and defence lawyers, insurers and other litigants with deep
pockets, etc. all want the public to believe that medical experts who
proffer expert testimony are merely serving as "friends of the court,"the letter begins;
"That is to say - the notion propagated for public consumption is that
these "experts" are disinterested parties who have no stake in who
wins the case but rather seek to assist the trier of fact with
"expert" opinion (of one sort or another) in specialty areas outside
the scope of knowledge of the judge," it continues;
"Put simply - "expert testimony is touted to be scientifically
objective and completely disinterested in who wins or loses the case.
Yet in contrast to this happy fiction, we have heard from Dr. Smith
who testified under oath that he was highly partisan and thought it
was his job/duty to help the crown and police "win" cases.
We have discovered that these experts in pathology denigrate one
another and compete among and between themselves trying to "win" cases
for whoever hires them - usually the crown with its limitless
tax-payer funded financial resources.
The same myths are fed to the public regarding the competitive
"experts" who opine in the civil justice context.
The insiders want us to believe that these medicolegal experts merely
convey the scientific, objective facts to the judge in a disinterested
and neutral manner.
But judges, plaintiff lawyers and defence lawyers are intricately
involved in the system and have no illusions about the competitive
aspects of proffering medical opinion in civil justice cases.
They know that winning means more referrals/cases from other insiders
(insurers, etc.) for more high-priced expert testimony.
They know that more referrals means more income and thus an
ever-expanding and highly lucrative IME (second opinions for sale)
business selling testimony...
The question is: why do they persist in propagating the myth of the
expert as a disinterested, scientifically objective friend of the court - when
they are well aware that the reality is otherwise?
Why do they foist this myth on the public when they are so often
confronted with partisan "experts" who come to court posing as
"disinterested" parties?
Bottom line - Judges and lawyers in both the civil and criminal
context ought not feign surprise that Dr.Smith (and a ton of others
just like him) thought his job was to strategically shape his expert
testimony so as to win the cases in which he proffered opinions for
the crown/police.
How could it be otherwise?
The irony here is that with respect to the myth of the objective
expert - Dr. Smith is the only "medicolegal expert" telling the truth
about how the expert opinion business works in Ontario."
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
