In most media stories about lawsuits, expert witnesses are little more than a side note. The article will mention in passing that a witness testified, and about what, but that’s usually the extent of it. So imagine my surprise and intrigue when I came across a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post, no less, titled “Expert witness goes nuts during questioning for Mississippi death penalty case.” (If that headline isn’t clickbait for lawyers, I don’t know what is.)
The article is a longer read, but an interesting story. It details a deposition given last April by disgraced “bite mark expert” Michael West in an appeal to a murder conviction handed down in 1994. West’s testimony was the only physical evidence that linked the defendant to the crime scene, and resulted in a death penalty sentence.
Sufficient new evidence had surfaced to reopen several issues in the case, including a challenge to West’s credibility based on a whole host of things: he was investigated by and either resigned or was expelled from three separate professional organizations; several cases in which his testimony led directly to a conviction had been overturned; and an attorney that worked with West, according to the article, even tricked him into “matching photos of bite marks on a murder victim to the dental plate of the attorney’s own private investigator.” I would say that’s good reason to examine the man’s reliability.
It’s probably not unreasonable to expect any “expert” to be somewhat defensive when his or her testimony is challenged. But excerpts from the deposition transcripts shared in the Washington Post article show not just a prickly witness, but one who is, as the author states in his follow up post, “wildly off the rails.” West leaves “rude” far in the dust with responses that range from belligerent to profane to incoherent to straight-up crazy, not to mention apparently in direct conflict with his original testimony. It’s almost hard to read, but provides a fascinating look into an expert witness gone wrong.
I could stop here with the obvious takeaway: choose your witnesses wisely. Questions about West’s credibility arose as early as 1994, and not just as back-room whispers; Newsweek, the ABA Journal, and “60 Minutes” all questioned his integrity and approach. But prosecutors continued to employ him, and judges and juries continued to make decisions based on his testimony, for at least 13 more years, when a high profile rape and murder case in which West’s testimony was again a smoking gun was overturned in 2007.
To me, this goes beyond selecting witnesses carefully. Of course, we should all choose witnesses that are legitimate experts, whose knowledge and demeanor can be trusted. We all want to do our best by our clients, and win cases for our businesses, and the right expert witness can make a huge difference to that end. But winning should never be at the expense of our integrity. Because many, many people over many, many years chose to ignore that Michael West was not only a quack, but quite possibly a sociopath, multiple people have unfairly spent years of their lives in prison and almost lost their lives entirely.
West’s story is a dramatic account of how influential expert witnesses can be. It’s also a powerful reminder that we’re all accountable for choosing witnesses that don’t just win cases, but share their expertise with wisdom, responsibility, and honesty. I’ll step off my soapbox now, but suggest that you take ten minutes to read the article. It will make you think.
Comment (1)
Comments are closed.