The adversarial court system and the expert medical witness: ‘The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?’

Wiley - Tập 15 Số 3 - Trang 283-288 - 2003
Matthew W. Ryan1
1Emergency Department, Geelong Hospital, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Tóm tắt

AbstractThis discussion aims to provide the occasional medical expert witness with background knowledge of the adversarial court system and the role of the medical expert witness within it. The parallel evolution of the adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems has been more out of tradition rather than any systematic review of the effectiveness of one system or the other. Both legal systems have their merits and limitations. Witnesses within the adversarial system are required to present evidence in a structured and highly stylized format consisting of ‘evidence in chief’ followed by ‘cross‐examination’. This format is an attempt to exclude unreliable evidence. The medical witness is an ‘expert’ by means of specialized knowledge not possessed by the general public. This distinction allows the expert medical witness to offer his or her opinion as evidence. There remain several limitations to the expert's evidence and these relate to common knowledge, field of expertise and the ‘ultimate issue’. The current practice of selection of expert medical witnesses is seriously flawed with several pressures operating to maximise bias and inaccurate testimony. Doctors should not only anticipate change in this area they should lead reform in this area.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb126709.x

The Australian Law Reform Commision., 2001, What is the adversarial system of litigation?

ABC Radio National.[Internet]Origins of the adversarial system of justice.The law report transcript. [cited 24 May2001]. Available from:http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/lstories/lr090109.htm/.

Buckley v. Rice Thomas.(1554) 1 Pl. Com. 118 24 (Saunders J.).

10.1046/j.1442-2026.2001.00187.x

10.5694/j.1326-5377.1998.tb126721.x

10.1080/00450619309411048

10.1016/S0733-8619(05)70139-0

Palmer A., 1998, Principles of Evidence

Freckelton I., 1987, The Trial of The Expert. A Study of Expert Evidence and Forensic Experts

Ranson D., 2000, Subject Book: Medical Evidence FOR 1001. Graduate Diploma of Forensic Medicine

Daubert v. Merrell.(1993) Dow Pharmaceuticals 113 Sct 2786.

Frye v. United States.(1923) 293 F 1013. at1014.

David R, 1985, Major Legal Systems in the World Today.

Phillips JH, 1989, Forensic Science and The Expert Witness.

MillerDL.Courtroom science and standards of proof.Lancet1987;1283–4.

10.1016/S0140-6736(05)63001-2

Murphy v. R.(1989) 167 CLR 94 110 (Mason C.J. & Toohey J.).

JesselMR.In:Lord Abinger v. Ashton.(1873) 17 L.R. Eq. 358 373.

Brent RB., 1982, The irresponsible expert witness: a failure of biomedical graduate education and professional accountability, Pediatrics, 70, 754, 10.1542/peds.70.5.754

American Academy of Pediatrics., 1989, Guidelines for expert witness testimony, Pediatrics, 83, 312, 10.1542/peds.83.2.312

10.1520/JFS12761J

Donaldson I, 1999, The medical expert witness. Time to regulate conflicts of interest, Med. Sci. Law, 39, 11, 10.1177/002580249903900104

American Academy of Pediatrics., 1989, Guidelines for expert witness testimony, Pediatrics, 83, 312, 10.1542/peds.83.2.312

10.1016/S0140-6736(05)62694-3

Expert Witness Code of Conduct.[Internet] Part 28 Rule 9C and Part 28A Rule 2 NSW.Attorney General's Department LAWLINK.[cited 28 Jan 2003] Available from:http://www.agd.nsw.gov.au/dc.nsf/pages/witcodetop/.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Wiley

Tập 15 Số 3

283-288

Thông tin tác giả