Now you've done Stockingful, admitting you're a lawyer. You're the one that better head for the equator.
stockingfull wrote: And the only reason the experts are permitted to state their opinion is that they theoretically would be testifying to the "single" answer which the science dictates on an issue in dispute.
Off topic, but I had the unfortunate experience of being a juror in a case where a elderly woman had hit a man with her car. Among many of the things claimed was that his carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by this single incident, guess the 30 years as a pizza maker wasn't it.
I sat in awe as this "medical expert" sat there on the stand and tried to explain how this was possible. Between the two experts they took up 50% of the time at the trial and could have just stayed home because the evidence for the accident didn't add up to what the plaintiff was claiming.
Short conclusion to the story is (and not sure why we were allowed on jury) is that many of us were well acquainted with the intersection that the accident happened at, I drove through it everyday myself for the last 15 years, plus we had a State Police accident reconstructionist on the Jury... He was able to immediately point out exactly why the testimony by the plaintiff was not the case, really didn't matter because no one believed him anyway.
Took 30 minutes of deliberation including lunch, what a waste of time and money. The only ones that benefited were the medical experts who walked away with about 4 or 5K each and the lawyers.