Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/163

 148

THE GREEN BAG

same hand, the similarities only were pointed out and emphasized, but if it was claimed that the authors were not the same, the differences were seized upon and proclaimed. The method of employing experts mili tates against a fair and impartial opinion. The income of the handwriting experts comes chiefly from their services in litigated cases. They know that in any given case, unless their opinion coincides with the con tention of the counsel who consults them, their remuneration will be little or nothing. The most conscientious man can hardly give an entirely unbiased opinion under these circumstances. When all experts are paid by the State, it should be possible to have them appointed by and report to the court. Their compen sation should be fixed in advance, and they should not be nominated by counsel after a consultation to see that their opinions are as desired. If no other experts were al lowed to testify, and if those so appointed might be called to testify by either side after making their report to the court, the testimony of the handwriting experts would be of infinitely greater value to the jury than under the present system. The medical expert testimony presented in .many respects a refreshing contrast to the handwriting testimony. Besides the Medical Examiner and the two physicians who assisted him at the autopsy, three phy sicians were called by the Government to give their opinions on various aspects of the case, and five physicians were called by the defence. The questions that they passed upon were the presence of blood on Tuck er's clothing and his knife, the nature of the weapon that caused the wounds, the order in which the wounds were delivered, and the length of time that the struggle occupied. Although there were some ap parent inconsistencies in their opinions, except possibly in one instance, they were easily reconcilable, and due to the different hypotheses in the questions propounded to them by the Government and the defence.

To illustrate: Prof. Wood of the Harvard Medical School called by the Government, testified that there were blood stains on the back of the knife; that he examined them on April 10, and found that the blood cor puscles were j^^ of an inch in diameter, showing that the blood was consistent with that of a human being and of certain wild animals such as the monkey and seal. There was not enough blood present to make the further and more decisive chem ical test. Dr. Leary for the defendant tes tified that he examined the knife several months later and found that the blood cor puscles were jfW of an inch in diameter, and that the blood was consistent not only with that of a human being and of the animals mentioned by Prof. Wood, but also with several other of the commoner wild and household animals; yet, this apparent inconsistency of results was accounted for by both witnesses by the fact that the diam eter of the blood corpuscles would tend to be diminished in the course of time by the action of moisture and of rust. It was interesting to see that in many matters of opinion, all of the physicians were entirely agreed. They all testified that the wound in the back was the first one struck, and all said that the blood found on Tucker's overcoat was human blood. Obviously, it would have been very much to the defendant's interest if possible to have had different opinions on both these questions. The medical experts, with one exception, seemed to be nearly free from the attitude of the advocate. Their testi fying in court is a mere incident in their life-work, and for that reason they are not so susceptible to the influences which affect the opinions of the other class of experts who were in the case. Without doing any injustice to the other eminently fair gentle men who testified in this connection, it is not too much to say that Prof. Wood ful filled all the requirements of an ideal ex pert. Recognized as the leading living au thority in his particular subject, he came