PROCEEDINGS OF THE OHIO ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 293. 



I refer to the use, or rather the abuse of expert testimony 

 in courts of law. Such testimony is generally summoned in 

 trials in which questions arise involving some department of 

 science or some one of the technical arts. It must be frankly 

 admitted that the scientific expert himself is responsible, more 

 than any one else, for the humiliating fact that courts and juries 

 often have little respect for him and little confidence in the evi- 

 dence which he furnishes. This unfortunate and unnatural con- 

 dition is the result of a system which is a disgrace to all who 

 are responsible for it. The scientific expert has allowed him- 

 self 10 become an advocate. All of his tests, experiments and 

 investigations are made to bolster up a particular theory. 

 Phenomena or results of experiments that tend to discredit this 

 theory are excluded from his testimony unless brought out by 

 the skillful questioning of the attorney on the other side, who 

 has been coached by another expert whose tests, experiments and 

 investigations have been made for the purpose of breaking down 

 this particular theory or establishing a different one. Often both 

 of these men know the real truth of the controversy and if locked 

 up in a research laboratory or isolated from outside influence 

 would come to substantial agreement as to every important fact 

 bearing upon it, for two trained observers can never differ long 

 as to the phenomena present in any investigation. 



But they have discredited themselves and the great body of 

 scientific men whom they temporarily represent by selling their 

 services as advocates rather than as experts skilled in ascertain- 

 ing facts. 



It has long been recognized that the remedy for this evil 

 lies in the selection of expert witnesses by the court. Attorneys 

 on both sides should be allowed to suggest questions to the court 

 for the experts to answer if the court considers them proper 

 but never to examine or cross-examine the witness directly. The 

 compensation of the witness should be fixed by the court and 

 paid by the state. The court would often find the academy the 

 best source of information regarding the qualifications of ex- 

 perts and would gladly transfer to it the responsibility of mak- 

 ing a selection, precisely as some years ago the officers of our 

 national government charged with the administration of the in- 



