lay
cards and talk connectedly on most things, and as he is casually
visiting him for a purpose, he can see no difference between him and
other men. This may well be the case and still have little to do with
insanity. Experts called for the defense cannot always be sure that the
patient truthfully answers the questions. A doctor must make up his mind
from examining the patient, except so far as hypothetical questions may
be used. In all larger cities, certain doctors are regularly employed by
the prosecution. While it would be too much to say that they always find
the patient sane, it is safe to say that they nearly always do.
Especially is this true in times of public clamor, which affects all
human conduct. A court trial with an insanity defense often comes down
largely to the relative impression of the testimony of the experts who
flatly contradict each other, leaving with intelligent men a doubt as to
whether either one really meant to tell the truth. The jury knows that
they are paid for their opinions and regards them more or less as it
regards the lawyers in the case. It listens to them but does not rely
upon their opinions. Expert testimony is always unsatisfactory in a
contested case. Under present methods, it can never be any different.

There is another danger: juries do not know the difference in the
standing, character and attainments of doctors, so the tendency is
always to find the man who will make the best appearance and testify
the most positively for his side. This is unfair to the expert, unfair
to science, and unfair to the case.

The method for overcoming this difficulty that has received most
sanction from students is that experts shall be chosen by the state and
appear for neither side. This, like most other things, has advantages
and disadvantages. State officials, or those chosen by the state,
usually come to regard themselves as a part of the machinery of justice
and to stand with the prosecuting attorney for conviction. It will most
likely be the same with state defenders. No one who really would defend
could be elected or could be appointed, and it would work out in really
having two prosecutors, one nominally representing the defense. A
defendant should be left to get any lawyer or any expert he wishes. No
one can be sure that the state expert will be better than the others.
All one can say is that state experts may not be partisans, but, in
effect, this would mean that they would not be p