Lawrence (O'D)--I love ya, but...

[spooky3]

You just denigrated a defense witness in the George Floyd trial because he was paid for his testimony. This is ridiculous. The prosecution expert witnesses were likely paid too, unless they were employees whose preparation for testimony and testimony itself are paid as part of their normal salaries. Are you going to discount their testimony?

As someone who has done this (not in criminal trials), I can tell you that time is required to prepare, maybe submit to a pre-trial deposition, and then to appear in court. I don't enjoy it, so I have turned down most requests. There is NO way that I or anyone I know would do this work, if not paid for our time and expertise.

There are plenty of good reasons to discount this particular defense witness's testimony (e.g., his comments were ludicrous and contrary to other evidence presented; his background is not very impressive). Being paid is not one of the good reasons. This undermines Lawrence's credibility.

Lawrence is paid for his work. That does not mean he is incompetent or can't be trusted.

[PJMcK]

1. Expert witnesses are (almost) always paid

It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

These are outside professionals with careers and businesses. The time that they spend analyzing evidence, formulating their perspective and testimony and attending court hearings doesn't come free. One side or the other pays for the experts.

I didn't see Mr. O'Donnell's report but I can't imagine why he made that point. He certainly knows better than that.

[spooky3]

2. He said it more than once. He also talked about how bad the testimony was, etc.,

but he really should have left out the "he got paid" argument.

I think his intention was to inform his audience members who don't know about payments, and imply that the witness could be a person willing to say anything for money, which of course could be true, but this needs to be handled very carefully. He also said that this witness offered (or may have offered?) his services to the prosecution but they didn't use him and that he then went to the defense. I just think he should have made it crystal clear that it is normal practice to pay for expert witnesses (that's one of the reasons why it costs so much to bring a lawsuit).

[joetheman]

16. I think his point was that the defense paid for really terrible testimony. ny

[Deminpenn]

23. Heard someone else bring this up,

maybe the HLN crew, but the point was about preparation. Whoever said it compared the 21k the state paid the S Car law professor and use-of-force expert to the 11k paid to Brodd. Said it indicated that one person had done a lot of pre-testimony work and the other hadn't done much at all based on being paid an hourly rate.

[dsc]

3. The lung guy on the prosecution side waived his usual (I would imagine substantial) fee

but yes, most such witnesses are paid. So unless he was paid a vast sum of money not a usual amount for the work involved that isn't a reason to discount.

[spooky3]

10. There are exceptional circumstances, such as someone wants to help for altruistic reasons on

an important case (like this one), where someone might do this. But not on a routine basis.

[Deminpenn]

24. He still charged an hourly rate for his work

nt

[DURHAM D]

4. The issue is not

that he was paid. The issue is that he was a bad witness and frankly if I was the person who paid him I would be pissed.

[spooky3]

6. That's why Lawrence should not have said anything about payments, unless

he had clear evidence that this guy was someone who could be bribed to say anything.

[DURHAM D]

11. I would say that the issue is not if his view was purchased, it is

that he was stupid.

[spooky3]

13. That is my point also. So LOD should have focused exclusively on that and not on $. nt

[Progressive Jones]

15. Every piece I've read about that witness mentioned the money. O'Donnell merely did the same. nt

[spooky3]

21. Were they trying to make the same point Lawrence did? If so, I'd criticize them

for the same thing, unless they were much more clear than LOD was about the fact that it is standard practice to pay expert witnesses and exactly why it is worth mentioning with respect to this particular witness.

See the USNews link another DUer posted below. It reported that multiple prosecution expert witnesses were paid. Did these other pieces also use this to undermine their testimony?

[MustLoveBeagles]

9. +1

[Crunchy Frog]

5. The pulmonologist and at least one other medical expert

chose not to charge anything for their testimony, so it can happen.

I don't think we'll see anything like that on the defense end.

I agree that expert witnesses shouldn't be judged on that basis.

[spooky3]

22. Dr. Tobin said (in the USNews article linked in a post below) his normal fee was $500 per hour

but for several reasons in this particular case, he chose to waive his fee.

[MustLoveBeagles]

7. I agree

There were plenty of reasons to criticize this witness but him being paid to for his testimony isn't one of them.

[ecstatic]

8. I agree with you, but Brodd (fraud) was the only paid "expert"

in this case that I'm aware of. I think that's what LO was getting at. Also, this isn't the typical murder trial. This case has transcended all others due to what was caught on film. It's notable that the only expert requiring payment was on chauvin's side.

[spooky3]

12. I don't know how Lawrence would know whether any prosecution witnesses were paid unless

the attorneys disclosed this for some reason. But if it is true, it is very likely because as you say, this is not a typical murder trial and other experts really wanted to help address the horrible wrong in the case.

Also, it was likely part of the normal job duties of some of those prosecution experts to provide this testimony (as I mentioned in my OP).

[spooky3]

18. Per the USNews article (link is in a post below) several were paid:

"Jody Stiger, a Los Angeles Police Department sergeant acting as an expert on police use of force, said he received a flat fee of $10,000 and another $2,950 for appearing at trial. Dr. Bill Smock, police surgeon at the Louisville Metro Police Department in Kentucky, also testified Thursday that he charged a $300 hourly rate."

[Hoyt]

14. Preparing as an expert witness is time consuming and stressful. Few do

it for free.

Depending on the case, it can take weeks, even months, of intense work, well over standard work hours, travel, late and earnings morning meetings, calls all hours of day and night, can’t really take a full day off, and worse. “Are you paid?,” is a state question, but part of the show.

[tirebiter]

17. EXPLAINER: Why Would an Expert Witness Go Without Pay?

CHICAGO (AP) — Experts in medicine can command thousands of dollars when they testify in American courtrooms, but prosecutors made a point of letting jurors know that Dr. Martin Tobin was not being paid for his appearance Thursday at former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin’s murder trial.

Tobin, a lung and critical care specialist at the Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital and Loyola University’s medical school in Illinois, testified that George Floyd died due to a lack of oxygen from being pinned to the pavement with Chauvin's knee on his neck.

After establishing Tobin had more than 40 years of experience, prosecutor Jerry Blackwell asked about his work as an expert witness. Tobin estimated that he has testified at about 50 court proceedings, particularly in medical malpractice lawsuits, but never in a criminal case.

That's why, Tobin explained, he was not charging a fee this time

?wid=0011r00002IjDWF_725



https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-04-08/explainer-why-would-an-expert-witness-go-without-pay

[spooky3]

19. Thanks! nt

[summer_in_TX]

20. I always learn things coming to DU.

It totally makes sense that expert witnesses would be paid. It's just something I never thought about.

One thing I'm always alert for on the cable news channels (except Newsy which is news straight up, not opinion or speculation) is whether their business model, which boils down to profiting off of division, is evident.

LOD's statement is one that strikes me unpleasantly. Even though it was reported, it's still interesting that he singled it out in the defense witness's case.

[Deminpenn]

25. Been watching the trial and every expert

witness the prosecution called was asked if they'd been paid and what amount.

Since yesterday was the first day of the defense case, perhaps Nelson decided to follow the full disclosure precendent the prosecution set for his expert witnesses.

[malaise]

26. i hear you

[hlthe2b]

27. Paid expert testimony is expected. Paid "faux expert" testimony posing as expert testimony is

what we are getting from the defense. Hardly unusual, but the lack of credible expertise is what gives the bad name of "hired gun" to the practice. But, yes, the practice is not at all unusual and should be criticized for lack of credibility & expertise--not for the fact they were paid.

[spooky3]

29. I suspect it was the best they could do. There simply is no

credible way to justify Chauvin’s actions. I would guess that they approached leading lights and they turned the defense down.

[Sunsky]

28. Lawrence isn't alone in his observations

It was mentioned on court tv and headline news. There is nothing wrong with being paid. The fact is, he is the highest-paid expert witness so far (around $11,000). He isn't only charging for his time in court, he charges to look over documents, etc. Many on the prosecution side did not. He also shopped around to find someone who would take his testimony for this case. He first went to the state but was not retained, then went to the defense and was accepted. Someone on HLN or court tv said the judge should have disallowed his testimony due to conflict. Some have opined that he was ultimately not helpful for the defense despite his high cost. Also according to someone on court tv, before the start of the trial, the defense did disclose that they were having issues finding expert witnesses.

[spooky3]

30. Jody Stiger was paid more; see US News article in another post.

Others likely were once you add everything up.

No surprise that they had trouble finding witnesses.

I guess it all boils down to whether there will be a rogue juror who holds out for acquittal.

[Sunsky]

32. Stiger was worth it IMO

And he (Stiger) didn't shop around to provide his service. How does one go from seeking to help the prosecution to helping the defense? He's an opportunist. He comes off as willing to say whatever is needed for whoever will pay him. I hope the jurors will see him for who he is.

[MVP Kamala]

31. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the trial. Most of the

prosecution’s experts weren’t paid. I think maybe 2 of them were paid a small fee. Several said they helped for free to do their part. Furthermore, this “expert” witness first offered his services to the prosecution and they rejected him.

The defense paid him $20,000 for that BS testimony that the prosecution dismantled and laughed out of court. Lawrence was right to drag that idiot. Did you listen to his testimony? He was lying and his answers weren’t logical

[spooky3]

33. Looks as if you didn't read all of my OP. Also, see the US news article

Linked in another DUer’s post.

I think we all agree he was a terrible witness.