"HOWEVER I DO KNOW THAT HIRED GUNS, POSING AS IMPARTIAL MEDICOLEGAL EXPERTS, PROLIFERATE THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM - AND NOBODY SEEMS TO CARE. TRUE, PEOPLE DON'T GO TO JAIL AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE BOGUS "EXPERT" OPINIONS OF HIRED GUNS IN THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM. BUT ALL TOO OFTEN THEIR PARTISAN TESTIMONY LEADS (NOT TO WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS) BUT TO WRONGFUL DECISIONS. SOMETIMES THE CONSEQUENCES OF WRONGFUL DECISIONS CAN BE AS BAD AS BEING SENT TO JAIL (EG. DENIED MEDICAL TREATMENT AND LEFT TO SURVIVE ON WELFARE DESPITE AN MVA RELATED BRAIN INJURY)."
FROM A REGULAR READER;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE; I am pleased to reproduce the following letter from "a regular reader" which this Blog received yesterday in connection with the post entitled: "Expert Evidence (2); Hired guns; Lessons the civil justice system can learn from the Smith debacle."
"I know the Charles Smith Blog is primarily interested in wrongful convictions in the criminal context," the letter begins.
"Hired guns the likes of Dr. Smith are a problem - but I'm not sure how many "hired guns" inhabit the Canadian criminal justice system - though I suspect Smith wasn't/isn't the only one," it continues.
"However I do know that hired guns, posing as impartial medicolegal experts, proliferate the civil justice system - and nobody seems to care. True, people don't go to jail as a consequence of the bogus "expert" opinions of hired guns in the civil justice system. But all too often their partisan testimony leads (not to wrongful convictions) but to wrongful decisions. Sometimes the consequences of wrongful decisions can be as bad as being sent to jail (eg. denied medical treatment and left to survive on welfare despite an mva related brain injury).
Here's the question: is there a recipricol relationship between hired guns in the criminal system and hired guns in the civil system? By that I mean - does the cavalier approach to the problem of hired guns in the Ontario civil justice system contribute to the lack of concern in the criminal system.?
For example - the College of Physicians and Surgeon's of Ontario's lack of action re Smith might have been born out of its long indifference to the hired guns who sell expert opinions in the civil system. I can't believe that the College did nothing about Smith for so long but now that he is long gone and no longer a member the College is all fired up to hold a disciplinary hearing - sorry but too little too late.
It is passing strange that even judges don't seem to care much about the hired gun issue. They won't allow the opinions of previous judges on the reliability of witnesses to be considered in subsequent cases - thus ensuring the hired guns are never confronted with their bias.
And lastly - the auto insurance trade journal article posted yesterday on this Blog is good in the sense that it is critical of hired guns. But it ignores the fact that it is the insured (the policy holders) who need to be protected from hired guns. Were one to search auto insurance casualty cases and read the judicial discourse - the sad fact is that it is the insurers (not the plaintiff lawyers) who keep hiring the same bunch of hired guns on whom they rely for pro-insurer (partisan) "expert" medicolegal opinions/testimony that allow insurers to blow legitimate claimants off their caseloads via wrongful decisions issued by judges who don't seem to have the heart to rid the system of its hired guns."
Best wishes; "A regular reader";
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
