As a privately retained expert, I have seen it happen in almost half of the cases I've been involved in: When "vigorous" discovery has been conducted on the caseworkers, supervisors, agency directors, "hired gun validators", accusing parties, medical experts and others, the plaintiff often "reconsiders" her position and decides to withdraw the action "for the sake of the child". I suspect that the real motive is a very different matter.
The standard operating procedures of most protective service agencies are a well kept secret for lack of discovery: What are your guidelines? What is your written policy? Explain in detail the background and "training" of each individual involved. Send me the written record, the manuals, the written policy, etc.
In my experience, juries and especially judges are often shocked to be "educated" as to these realities. When an attorney begins the appropriate discovery process, the agency or prosecutor who normally expects the typical "Made the World Safe for Children" press coverage, now wakes in the middle of the night with a nightmare headline: "Former Burger King Employee Becomes Sex Abuse 'Expert' in Five Weeks"!
Moreover, "vigorous" discovery assisted by an "out-of-town" expert, has proven to be especially effective. It is a sad reality that the mental health professionals in most nonmetropolitan areas belong to the "Don't ask, Don't tell" fraternity. They often have worked together and normally have developed referral "networks" that make them financially interdependent. What is more, working for the defense of the falsely accused could leave the impression that the professional is not against child abuse, or worse, "helped that child molester get off!"
Vigorous discovery activities often rock the boat of "business as usual". It is easier to castoff one case than it is to weather a storm that threatens a local industry!
[7] Trying a case "on-the-cheap" will almost always produce a worse result than "negotiating".
Perhaps the greatest reason that I decline to participate in a case, as a witness or a consultant, is because it is obvious to me that the attorney is attempting to perform a service without appropriate resources. I find this to be true in almost half of the cases where my services are requested. This is not to say that only by hiring a forensic expert with a national practice may a party prevail, but rather, you simply need the resources to get the job done considering the risks involved!
I am personally familiar with dozens of cases that prove the rule. I regularly observe cases to improve my skills and note the skills of others. One such recent case involved a middle-aged man who was accused of placing his finger in the vagina of his niece. It was a criminal case. He was represented by three attorneys. Two of these three attorneys enjoyed very distinguished careers and reputations. They were able to negotiate a plea to a lower offense with no jail time. The defendant, who maintained his innocence and passed a lie detector test, wanted his "name cleared". He now resides in jail. His attorneys were sure that the jury would see how sincere he was on the stand and how the evidence against him was virtually nonexistent. They were wrong.
Another recent case involved an allegation made against a daycare owner who had a sterling reputation. As is common, the case began in civil court where there was an attempt to pull her daycare license. Again, the client had passed a lie detector test, and her attorney was sure that when he brought in dozens of witnesses to nominate her to be a modern Joan of Arc, she would prevail. He did, however, ask me my opinion.
I outlined for him an extensive discovery plan that would not only assure a good chance at prevailing in the civil case, but more importantly, would be likely to eliminate a subsequent criminal indictment. The attorney thought it was an "Overkill" and explained that it was his "duty to be sure his client did not spend any unnecessary funds". The result: The woman prevailed in the civil matter, given the rather incredible nature of the allegations and the character witnesses, and the solicitor brought a criminal case based on the feeble defense on the civil side.
The cost of defending the criminal action was much greater than my original estimate, but what is worse, the attorney now must try the criminal case without the benefit of the discovery that was available in the civil case (A fact I am sure did not escape the prosecutor).
A client that insists on losing a case to prove a point does not require the services of a distinguished attorney to reach his goal. I once had a professor who stressed that: "The essence of professionalism is common sense." In this vain: If you do not have the resources to do the job, you probably won't and your client will likely pay more than the cost of doing the job properly.
Expert Testimony:
[8] The expert able to explain complicated concepts with simple language will prevail over the expert with an impressive pedigree and a complicated manner.
Unlike many other types of cases, the key to effective expert testimony is the expert's ability to "educate" the court. In most cases experts are called to render "opinions" in very complicated matters. For example, in a medical negligence case a neurosurgeon is called to explain a particular part of a surgical procedure and to render an opinion as to "generally accepted practice". No one in the courtroom possesses the technical background, or often the interest, to understand the intricacies of the surgeon's testimony.
Not surprisingly, the seventy-year-old professor of neurosurgery from the Ivy League University Medical Center is "more believable" than the thirty-five-year-old surgeon who is now a forensic expert because he lost his license to practice medicine last year.
In the area of the sexual abuse of children, the believability of an "expert" is based on entirely different criteria. First of all, the trier of fact usually has experience with: children, sexuality, sexual urges, and liars. By contrast, experience in neurosurgery belongs to a small club. Second, the source of "expertise" in the area of child sexual abuse is different than the sources of other expertise. By way of illustration, if you were looking for an expert to testify as to a medical matter, you would expect to find such witnesses working in a hospital. Better yet, you might find an expert who trains physicians. If your case involved an allegation of "pilot error", you might expect to find expert witnesses employed as pilots by commercial airlines, or better yet, an instructor of airline pilots.
By extension, the average person believes that the "experts" in the field of child sexual abuse are to be found in child protection agencies. After all, they work in the area every day! The reality is startling. In most jurisdictions these public agencies are exempt from educational requirements and licensing provisions. (How else could you fill these low paying positions?) Formal college education, if any, is often in unrelated fields. It is a sad reality that protective caseworkers, with rare exception, are the poorest trained staff in the child abuse industry.
Over the last twenty years this reality has reached the public's eyes despite vigorous campaigns to keep the public blinded by the "child abuse hysteria". In response to the public's outcry to these realities, these agencies have begun to hire credentialed employees who may hold graduate degrees. They often have little contact with actual agency operations, but regularly find their way into court. Another method in current usage is to "refer" each allegedly abused child to a "validator", i.e., an expert whose full-time private practice consists of "validating" every case referred. (Calling an impartial evaluator a "validator" is the equivalent of calling a judge a "convictor").
Though the public may feel otherwise, the least knowledgeable practitioners have the greatest impact on the court. That is why your expert must be able to "educate" the court as to the nature of his expertise (experience and training) and lead the court, step by step, to understand his conclusions. He must be able to explain the research in simple, relevant terms. He must lead the court to
