Use of Expert Witnesses in Courtrooms

* James Q. Wilson complains about the use in courtrooms of expert witnesses whose claims about causes of criminal behavior do not meet his standards of scientific rigor (“It’s Not the Excuse, It’s the Expert,” Commentary, May 12).

These experts, he suggests, then mislead juries into giving excessively lenient penalties to violent offenders. I suspect, however, that juries may be less swayed by claims about “causes” than by the demands of simple justice. When juries hear about acts of child abuse or domestic violence in an offender’s background, they are almost always hearing about crimes that have gone unpunished.

In many cases, the perpetrators of these violent acts were never acknowledged as criminals, let alone brought to justice. Only very recently have our legal institutions begun to take these crimes seriously, and we have a long way to go to extend real protection, via preventive measures as well as criminal prosecution, to women and children who are the most frequent victims.

DEBORAH WILLIS

Riverside

* Wilson completely ignores the prevalence of prosecutors’ use of pseudo-experts in criminal trials. While appellate courts have upheld substantial limits on defendants’ attempts to introduce expert testimony at trial, the curbs are not applied evenhandedly. Prosecutors routinely put on the stand purported “crime” or “modus operandi” experts--typically former law enforcement officers wearing an “expert witness” hat for the day’s testimony. These so-called experts are permitted to testify that a wide range of otherwise ordinary conduct is “typical” of criminals’ behavior. For example, an appellate decision has allowed expert testimony that carrying a pager and using pay phones indicates narcotics trafficking.

Wilson hits the nail on the head when he notes that the law does not give “equal access” to expert witnesses--but he misses the mark in focusing only on indigent defendants. Any legitimate debate about the role of experts in criminal trials should, at a minimum, begin with an honest look at both sides of the phenomenon.

EVAN A. JENNESS

Deputy Federal Public Defender

Los Angeles

* It is refreshing to see Alan M. Dershowitz urging skepticism when evaluating the testimony of bought witnesses (Commentary, May 11). As I recall, this is the same Dershowitz who submitted numerous commentaries in defense of wife-beaters and such, while on the O.J. Simpson defense dole; the same Dershowitz, member of the O.J. Dream Team that paid beaucoup bucks toward expert witnesses who testified that the LAPD crime lab was a “cesspool of contamination,” and there was “something wrong” with the evidence?

Oh, no wonder he doesn’t trust paid testimony anymore!

JILL SULLIVAN

Sunland