Originally Posted by Rochard

This is something I don't understand about our legal system.

I remember watching the forensic ME, who discussed his qualifications for two hours. He was clearly over qualified and the longer he sat there on the stand the more money he was paid. He said he was charging some $200 an hour or something like that. And while I listened to him ramble on... I started to wonder how many other medical examiners they talked to before settling on him. The defense interviewed ten or twenty medical examiners with similar qualifications, and they picked the one that saw the things the way the defense wanted AND looked presentable in court. But wouldn't this be a biased opinion? He is an expert, but an expert on the payroll of the defense, and they most likely had to speak to a dozen candidates and it's possible that not all candidates agreed with the defense's version of what happened.

Doesn't this make everything this "expert" says suspect?

Why doesn't the court hire an expert, split the costs between both sides, and no one gets to speak to him (her) before they testify. This way we know this is an expert that has been hand selected and isn't working for either one side.