|
Forensics key in Spector trial The verdict could hinge on the motives, loyalty and competence of a slate of expert witnesses with divergent opinions. Phil Spector's murder defense began three months ago with a vow by attorney Linda Kenney Baden to produce an "unimpeachable witness" with "no motive to lie for or against any person." The witness would have "no memory problems ... no language problems," she told the jury. "That witness," she said, "is called science." But now, with the defense case all but completed, its science experts have proved as open to attack as any other witnesses. They have been fiercely questioned about their motives, objectivity and competence. They have disclosed their pay -- $5,000 a day in one case -- and, in describing their scientific findings, illustrated the subjectivity underlying their judgments. ... But the jury has little more than the dueling experts' words to go on, observers said. By contrast, when other scientists publish their findings, "any one of us who can read a study can evaluate the study," said Michael J. Saks, an Arizona State University law professor who participated in a National Academy of Sciences conference on forensic science this year. "When you move over to forensic science, there is astonishingly little research to test the fundamental assumptions," Saks said. One bloodstain expert who has not testified in the trial is Herbert MacDonell, who has a conventional academic background -- he was a college chemistry professor -- and works as an expert witness in trials. MacDonell, who originated the experiment cited by James, said he had not seen the Spector trial and did not know who testified. … "Defense lawyers interview the experts in advance. If their views are not compatible with the defense's take, that's the end of that expert as far as the case is concerned," he said. On the prosecution side, Saks said, experts who work in police crime labs "will still have a job" if their testimony does not support law enforcement, "but they may not be loved as much. They are more a part of a team. It shouldn't be that way, but they get to know the prosecutors and become friends." Saks said a useful reform might be to open independent government crime labs that serve both law enforcement and defense attorneys. …
For a copy of the complete article, contact CJRG. |