In the ongoing murder trial of Karen Read, a key debate is whether Dr. Marie Russell, a physician who studied bite wounds from police dogs, should testify about injuries found on the body of Read’s deceased boyfriend. Prosecutors accuse Read of killing him, while her defense claims he was beaten by someone else and then bitten by a dog. They want Dr. Russell’s testimony to support their theory. However, prosecutors argue her testimony should be excluded.
This situation highlights a challenge that arises in dog bite trials, too. Attorneys often ask me to recommend “experts” without providing enough detail about the case—such as the key issues, facts, or opinions requiring testimony. Selecting an expert without a clear purpose risks creating confusion, especially for a jury.
In Read’s trial, for example, the many experts who have testified on many topics have turned the proceedings into what some describe as a “three-ring circus,” where the abundance of opinions risks overwhelming jurors. This is one of the reasons I have argued that expert witness testimony should be avoided in dog bite trials. To learn what experts in dog attack cases should testify about, see Evidence in Dog Bite Cases.
One of the reasons why I do not like expert testimony is that it can backfire. Most true experts have to admit there are multiple perspectives to any issue. They are tasked with weighing alternatives and presenting an informed opinion. The jury might like one of the other alternatives better than the one the expert recommends.
For instance, Dr. Russell’s testimony could hinge on whether the lacerations on the victim’s arm came from a car (as prosecutors argue) or a dog’s teeth (as the defense claims). To explain her opinion, she must detail how car-related injuries differ from dog bites. Jurors must first accept her credentials, then decide if her opinion is credible. Along the way, they’ll receive so much information that they might form their own conclusions about the injuries—possibly ones that differ from Dr. Russell’s.
But the right kind of expert can be essential in certain cases, too. Although we know much about dogs, we don’t necessarily know why a particular dog might have bitten an attack victim. In a dog bite case, it is often necessary to hire a canine expert to shape the case from its very beginning. Read more about this at Canine Issues.
For more insights into the expert testimony in the Karen Read murder trial, read At Karen Read Trial, Forensic Evidence Has Moved to the Fore by Travis Anderson in the Boston Globe.