CAN “ADVERSARIAL ALLEGIANCE” AFFECTS FORENSIC DECISION-MAKING? Here is a research evaluating the expert’s take on a given case depending on the retaining party (prosecution or defense). It was designed to examine the potential role of adversarial allegiance on expert testimony. In other words, do experts’ evaluations of evidence vary as a function of being asked to testify for one side (prosecution) versus the other (defense) in court? In the adversarial legal system, like the Philippines’, each attorney has a duty to zealously advocate for his/her client. Deciding whether and who to retain as an expert is a critical part of advocacy, and attorneys are likely to contact experts who support their clients’ positions (i.e., law enforcement expert for the prosecution; retired, private or academic expert for the defense). The “norm of reciprocity” also may contribute to adversarial allegiance. The norm of reciprocity is the mutual exchange of favors (i.e. a good paying client will likely receive good attention from the retained examining fingerprint expert). The norm of reciprocity has implications for the relationship between an attorney and expert. Experts may feel obligated to repay their debt of being asked to testify or being paid for their opinion by providing favorable evidence for the retaining party. If experts are paid sizably to testify, this should increase their bias in favor of the retaining party. One potential remedy is the use of court-appointed experts to testify on behalf of the court as opposed to one side or the other (prosecution or defense). Typically, the judge is responsible for soliciting the expert’s involvement and serves as the conduit of information from attorneys for both sides to the expert. Receiving case-related information from the judge on behalf of both parties should shift away from either party to the court because the expert is testifying on behalf of (and paid by) the court. What is your take on this? Can this type of research relevant to be conducted here in our local setting? Note: Above statements are extracted, with modifications, from the text of BIAS IN THE COURTROOM? ADVERSARIAL ALLEGIANCE AND EXPERT TESTIMONY, A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology by Jeana L. Arter, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE, August 2012.
Posted on: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:36:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015