Expert Evidence

Abstract

July 1999. At a stretch from the Ha’penny Bridge, in one of Europe’s unique cities, a curious trial takes place. It is a trial with two defendants facing each other. It is not the state that accuses in this trial; it is the state, or rather the system of law, that is on trial here. And although one could argue that the state is on trial in every case brought to the courtroom, where it needs to ascertain that conviction is the right thing to do in that particular case and based on the (properly obtained) evidence before the court, this trial is different. On trial are the accusatorial and inquisitorial system of law, represented in part by the American criminal justice system on the one hand, and its Dutch counterpart on the other hand. To aid their defense, both counsels have many experts available, ranging from experts on police interviewing and trial procedures in both systems of law, to experts on experts and their role in accusatorial systems on the one hand, and inquisitorial systems on the other. The list of experts is impressive, and so is their standing within their community. The clients—the inquisitorial and adversarial systems—have eloquent representation and advantageous positions. Indeed, as will be shown in this contribution, their positions are much more eloquent and advantageous than most criminal defendants can hope for in either system of law.