Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Fix the problem of expert testimony

Allen Frances, MD
Physician
December 22, 2014
Share
Tweet
Share

Dostoevsky’s Brother’s Karamazov cleverly spoofs the careless inexpertness of what often passes for expert legal testimony.

Three medical experts are called to testify whether Dmitri Karamazov was sane or insane when committing the alleged murder of his father. Naturally, the experts all disagree, with each completely convinced of the incontrovertible truth of his own opinion. Expert 1 finds Dmitri insane because he looked to the left as he entered the courtroom. Expert 2 also finds Dmitri insane, but instead because he looked to the right. Expert 3 correctly finds Dmitri sane, but for the wrong reason that he stared straight ahead. And all three are absolutely sure Dimitri did commit the murder — which in fact he did not. Three blind mice.

Dostoevsky was recognized by Freud as the master of psychological thinking, but his love of psychology did not stop him from poking huge holes in its reliability. “One can draw from psychology whatever conclusions one likes. It all depends on whose hands it is in. I am speaking of excessive psychology, of a certain abuse of it.”

He then demonstrates vividly just how this abuse of psychology plays out in courtroom situations. The prosecutor on the case presents a brilliant, completely plausible psychological profile of Dmitri that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that he must have committed the crime. Then, based on the very same traits and facts, the defense attorney presents an equally brilliant, but completely opposite, psychological profile that proves beyond any shadow of doubt that Dmitri could not possibly have committed the crime. There is no gold standard that allows a jury to choose between the opposing speculations.

Dostoevsky uses a Russian proverb to explain this situation — that psychology is a stick with two ends (equivalent to our sword that cuts both ways). He knew better than anyone that speculative psychological theorizing can be just as easily used to disguise the truth as to reveal it. A theory that seems completely plausible can be completely wrong.

Dostoevsky wrote 135 years ago, but his critique of forensic psychiatry and forensic psychology stands the test of time. The abuses he described still occur often today in just the way he described them. My experience as expert witness in hundreds of legal cases does not inspire much confidence in the way our legal system uses (and more often abuses) expert testimony.

Many factors contribute to experts generating heat, not light.

First off, many alleged experts are simply not really all that expert and say things that are just dead wrong. The filters meant to eliminate errant opinion and junk ‘science’ don’t work.

Second, the adversarial system cultivates an expert allegiance bias. Consciously or unconsciously, expert opinions are strongly influenced by who is paying the bill.

Third, juries often have to decide questions that are far beyond their competence. Which of the dueling experts to believe is more often determined by presentation skills and likeability than the technical accuracy of the testimony.

Finally, the adversarial quality of the legal system demands that experts give black-and-white, yes-or-no answers to questions that often require a shades-of-gray, nuanced response. Even wise and unbiased experts mislead when they are forced to choose a yes or no when the best answer would be maybe or a little bit of both.

As it stands now, the expert testimony in many trials is pretty worthless. Each side presents an extreme set of opinions that in opposite ways distort the complex reality. The jury cancels them out or makes a pretty blind choice between them.

The system may be too embedded to reform, but a few simple changes would make a world of difference. To achieve neutrality and preserve nuance, experts should whenever possible be appointed by the court, not the warring sides. There should be a more rigorous way of establishing that they are indeed experts and are using methods of assessment that are reasonably reliable and well validated. Reports should document how the existing literature pertains to the facts of this case and the degree of confidence with which each opinion is rendered and why. Experts should be instructed to be cautious in their judgments, staying close to the facts and to the literature. I don’t know is the most appropriate answer to many questions. Purely idiosyncratic speculation should be identified and treated as unreliable and essentially worthless.

ADVERTISEMENT

Doing it right would much reduce the role of expert testimony in the legal system — probably a very good thing.

Allen Frances is a psychiatrist and professor emeritus, Duke University.  He blogs at the Huffington Post.

Prev

Physician burnout: Medicine fails us

December 22, 2014 Kevin 4
…
Next

What will it take to reduce physician wait times?

December 23, 2014 Kevin 28
…

Tagged as: Malpractice

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Physician burnout: Medicine fails us
Next Post >
What will it take to reduce physician wait times?

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Allen Frances, MD

  • #MeToo shows why women must learn sexual self-defense

    Allen Frances, MD
  • The problem of polypharmacy in psychiatry

    Allen Frances, MD
  • Pay primary care doctors what they’re worth

    Allen Frances, MD

More in Physician

  • Why more doctors are choosing direct care over traditional health care

    Grace Torres-Hodges, DPM, MBA
  • How to handle chronically late patients in your medical practice

    Neil Baum, MD
  • How early meetings and after-hours events penalize physician-mothers

    Samira Jeimy, MD, PhD and Menaka Pai, MD
  • Why medicine must evolve to support modern physicians

    Ryan Nadelson, MD
  • Why listening to parents’ intuition can save lives in pediatric care

    Tokunbo Akande, MD, MPH
  • Finding balance and meaning in medical practice: a holistic approach to professional fulfillment

    Dr. Saad S. Alshohaib
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • America’s ER crisis: Why the system is collapsing from within

      Kristen Cline, BSN, RN | Conditions
    • Why timing, not surgery, determines patient survival

      Michael Karch, MD | Conditions
    • How early meetings and after-hours events penalize physician-mothers

      Samira Jeimy, MD, PhD and Menaka Pai, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

      Trevor Lyford, MPH | Policy
  • Recent Posts

    • Beyond burnout: Understanding the triangle of exhaustion [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Facing terminal cancer as a doctor and mother

      Kelly Curtin-Hallinan, DO | Conditions
    • Online eye exams spark legal battle over health care access

      Joshua Windham, JD and Daryl James | Policy
    • FDA delays could end vital treatment for rare disease patients

      G. van Londen, MD | Meds
    • Pharmacists are key to expanding Medicaid access to digital therapeutics

      Amanda Matter | Meds
    • Why ADHD in women requires a new approach [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 1 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • America’s ER crisis: Why the system is collapsing from within

      Kristen Cline, BSN, RN | Conditions
    • Why timing, not surgery, determines patient survival

      Michael Karch, MD | Conditions
    • How early meetings and after-hours events penalize physician-mothers

      Samira Jeimy, MD, PhD and Menaka Pai, MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • The hidden health risks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

      Trevor Lyford, MPH | Policy
  • Recent Posts

    • Beyond burnout: Understanding the triangle of exhaustion [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Facing terminal cancer as a doctor and mother

      Kelly Curtin-Hallinan, DO | Conditions
    • Online eye exams spark legal battle over health care access

      Joshua Windham, JD and Daryl James | Policy
    • FDA delays could end vital treatment for rare disease patients

      G. van Londen, MD | Meds
    • Pharmacists are key to expanding Medicaid access to digital therapeutics

      Amanda Matter | Meds
    • Why ADHD in women requires a new approach [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Fix the problem of expert testimony
1 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...