lled medical witness hired,
and paid for his advocacy, just as that eminent lawyer was? Then why
should we discard the evidence of the one, and accept the other?
Neither of these gentlemen commits perjury. What they tell, is
honestly told. But--and, gentlemen of the jury, I now come to the
vital point of this argument--the expert does not give us an unbiased
opinion. The reason is plain. As experts can be found with varying
opinions, so those are sought whose opinions agree with the position
which they are called to sustain. To be more definite, the experts
called by the prosecution in this case, were called, because it was
known in advance what they would testify, and because said testimony
would be favorable to the hypothesis of the prosecution. Though, I may
say parenthetically, in this case it has proven otherwise. But, stated
on general principles, that is the fact. The prosecution chooses
experts, whose views can be relied upon to support the charge against
the prisoner. And I must candidly confess that the defence is actuated
similarly. Surmising in advance what the opposing experts would tell
us, we went about amongst equally eminent men, and found no difficulty
in selecting those who could with equal positiveness, with equal
authority, and with equal experience and knowledge, support our
hypothesis. Had we found a gentleman who entertained views similar to
those of the prosecution's witnesses, do you suppose, for one moment,
that we would have engaged such a man to aid us? Of course not! Then
are the lawyers for the prosecution any more human than we? Do you
suppose that they would call an expert, if they knew that his honest
opinions would controvert their claims? Certainly not. Were they not
loath to call Dr. Fisher? Thus, gentlemen, have we discovered, by
analytical reasoning, the cause of the bias existing in the mind of an
honest man. His opinion is sought in advance. If favorable he is
engaged. When engaged he becomes a hired advocate, as much as the
lawyer. Moreover, unlike the witness of facts, his testimony is tinged
by a personal interest. He knows that celebrated experts will oppose
his views. His reputation is on trial, as it were. If the verdict is
for his side, it is a sort of juridical upholding of his position. He
is therefore arrayed against his antagonists, as much as the lawyers
of the opposing sides. In short, having once expressed an opinion, he
will go to any extreme almost, to prove that h