NCJ Number
145624
Date Published
1993
Length
112 pages
Annotation
A mail survey and interviews with Federal judges gathered information regarding the appointment of expert witnesses, the reasons for infrequent appointments, and techniques and procedures that may aid judges when considering whether to appoint an expert or when managing an expert who has been appointed.
Abstract
The survey was mailed to each active Federal district court judge, who was asked about appointments of experts under the authority of Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The judges who had made such appointments were interviewed by telephone. Results revealed that much of the uneasiness with court-appointed experts arises from the difficulty in accommodating such experts in a court system that values and generally anticipates adversarial presentation of evidence. Thus, judges view the appointment of an expert as an extraordinary activity that is appropriate only in rare instances in which the traditional adversarial process has failed to permit an informed assessment of the facts. Other factors hindering the appointment of experts include compensation issues and the failure to recognize the need for such assistance until just before the start of the trial. Several changes in Rule 706 and related procedures would improve the use of court- appointed experts. In addition, even within the structure of the current rules, procedures could be modified to permit more focused consideration of scientific and technical evidence. Footnotes and appended study instruments