In U.S., Expert Witnesses Are Partisan

[groovedaddy]

Judge Denver D. Dillard was trying to decide whether a slow-witted Iowa man accused of acting as a drug mule was competent to stand trial. But the conclusions of the two psychologists who gave expert testimony in the case, Judge Dillard said, were “polar opposites.”

One expert, who had been testifying for defendants for 20 years, said the accused, Timothy M. Wilkins, was mentally retarded, had a verbal I.Q. of 58 and did not understand the proceedings.

The prosecution expert, who had testified for the state more than 200 times, said that Mr. Wilkins’s verbal I.Q. was 88, far above the usual cutoffs for mental retardation, and that he was competent to stand trial.

Judge Dillard, of the Johnson County District Court in Iowa City, did what American judges and juries often do after hearing from dueling experts: he threw up his hands. The two experts were biased in favor of the parties who employed them, the judge said, and they had given predictable testimony.

“The two sides have canceled each other out,” the judge wrote...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/us/12experts.html?th&emc=th

[napi21]

1. That's pretty standard practice in all trials. You can ALWAYS find

an expert to bolster your position, no matter what it is!

[1monster]

2. I know someone whose I.Q. is 91 and he would need some very careful

and constant explanations of what was going on in a court proceeding just to almost understand any of the implications.

Someone with a verbal I.Q. of 88 may be able to earn a living in a very menial position, but that person is going to need some help in every day living. He/She is not going to be able to understand and aid in his/her own defense.

In the not too distant past, the cut off for mental retardation which granted a person governmental assistance of one sort or another automatically was 85. Now it is 69.

Isn't it wonderful that so many people were cured of mental retardation so swiftly with only the stroke of a pen...

[groovedaddy]

4. Are you referring to GWB? n.t

[1monster]

6. No... This predates GWB by about twenty years, give or take. It started in state

governments, but the feds followed very quickly.

[happyslug]

7. The cut off for Federal Assistance is 59, unless you have another major problem, then ii is 70

And the second problem has to something that is an "additional and significant work-related limitation of function;" not something minor

Here is the Regulation governing SS Disability:

12.05 Mental retardation: Mental retardation refers to significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the developmental period; i.e., the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22.
The required level of severity for this disorder is met when the requirements in A, B, C, or D are satisfied.
A. Mental incapacity evidenced by dependence upon others for personal needs (e.g., toileting, eating, dressing, or bathing) and inability to follow directions, such that the use of standardized measures of intellectual functioning is precluded;
OR
B. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 59 or less;
OR
C. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function;
OR
D. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70, resulting in at least two of the following:
1. Marked restriction of activities of daily living; or
2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning; or
3. Marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; or
4. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration.

Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404—Listing of Impairments (Where the above Regulation is):
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-ap10.htm

Social Security Regulations:
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0000.htm

Or the term "Marked" is also defined in the regulations, under 12.00 categories of Impairments BEFORE you get to the individuals impairments (In the above Appendix 1):

1. Activities of daily living include adaptive activities such as cleaning, shopping, cooking, taking public transportation, paying bills, maintaining a residence, caring appropriately for your grooming and hygiene, using telephones and directories, and using a post office. In the context of your overall situation, we assess the quality of these activities by their independence, appropriateness, effectiveness, and sustainability. We will determine the extent to which you are capable of initiating and participating in activities independent of supervision or direction.

We do not define "marked" by a specific number of different activities of daily living in which functioning is impaired, but by the nature and overall degree of interference with function. For example, if you do a wide range of activities of daily living, we may still find that you have a marked limitation in your daily activities if you have serious difficulty performing them without direct supervision, or in a suitable manner, or on a consistent, useful, routine basis, or without undue interruptions or distractions.

[happyslug]

8. In addition 88 is NOT mentally retarded, but 58 is.

A person with an IQ in the 80s is "Low Average" not mentally Retarded:
http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm

Furthermore the term "MentallY Retarded" only applies to people whose IQ is below 69.

Please note that the term "Extremely Low" had replaced the term "Mentally Retarded" use din earlier tests and reports to "avoid the implication that a very low IQ score is sufficient evidence by itself for the classification of "mental retardation" or "intellectually deficient."

http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

But the IQ test is fairly standard, so why the difference? We can NOT tell for the case has been dismissed and no one asked either witness (in the articles, probably did ask BOTH in court but what was said is NOT mentioned in the article).

[LiberalFighter]

3. The judge should order an impartial examination.

The question is how does one get an impartial group that the judge can call on to render the test?

[izquierdista]

5. Have the court pay their salary

If experts were paid directly by the court and not one of the aggrieved parties, their independence and impartiality could be better assured. Of course, the expert consultants wouldn't like that, because they would have a steady government job instead of being able to charge "whatever the market will bear".

[happyslug]

9. I like the "Hot Tubing" suggestion as mentioned in the Article.

"Hot Tubing", both sides experts testify together both as a team and as people who hold two different positions.

http://www.attorneyadvocacy.com/2008/08/hot_tubbing_1.html
http://juries.blogspot.com/2008/08/hot-tubbing.html
http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2008/08/hot-tubbing-counterbalance-for-expert.html
http://blogs.mddailyrecord.com/ontherecord/2008/08/13/hot-tubbing-at-trial/