Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Carter trial is the way in which any talk about the role of lawyers/judges in the Carter debacle is being carefully bracketed out. The argument seems to be that the fraud - if there was a fraud - is based on how Carter presented his qualifications to clients and/or the subjects of his "expert" child custody assessments. But what is being studiously evaded is that often (though not always) Carter's "clients" weren't the subjects of his assessments/testimony but rather the "third parties" that purchased his "expert" opinions/diagnosis/testimony. Durham Family Services was one of Carter's clients repeatedly using Carter on a fee-for-service basis without ever checking/vetting his CPO membership registration. Ditto an array of family law lawyers who relied on Carter's "expert" opinion evidence. Like all such assessments, the vast majority of Carter's unqualied assessments never reached trial. But when they did - and Carter testified - his qualifications were never challenged by opposing family law lawyers - presumably because they didn't bother to read the clearly posted practice restrictions placed on Carter's CPO membership profile. Seems to me that if Carter is found guilty of fraud - the unaddressed fact will be that he was only able to perpetrate such a fraud because the third parties who hired him - family services and assorted family law lawyers - systemically failed to vett his unchallenged status as an "expert witness". Or am I missing something? Put simply, if Carter is found to be a fraudster - then the question which begs to be asked/answered is whether or not the third parties who failed to vett his CPO registration were negligent? Isn't that part of why litigants hire lawyers - to protect them from bogus "expert" witnesses?
The news today says the SCC will hear a couple of (illegal?)jury vetting cases. I wonder if any of the wrongful conviction (via Charles Smith) cases involved questionable jury vetting. Imagine the irony of the formal qualifications of the crown's expert (negligently?) not be vetted even as the crown (illegaly?)vetts the jury pool!! If such a dual abuse occurred - wouldn't the person wrongfully convicted be eligible for double the compensation they would ordinarily receive?
4 comments:
Eat them greens!!!
Hi Mr. Morton,
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Carter trial is the way in which any talk about the role of lawyers/judges in the Carter debacle is being carefully bracketed out. The argument seems to be that the fraud - if there was a fraud - is based on how Carter presented his qualifications to clients and/or the subjects of his "expert" child custody assessments. But what is being studiously evaded is that often (though not always) Carter's "clients" weren't the subjects of his assessments/testimony but rather the "third parties" that purchased his "expert" opinions/diagnosis/testimony. Durham Family Services was one of Carter's clients repeatedly using Carter on a fee-for-service basis without ever checking/vetting his CPO membership registration. Ditto an array of family law lawyers who relied on Carter's "expert" opinion evidence. Like all such assessments, the vast majority of Carter's unqualied assessments never reached trial. But when they did - and Carter testified - his qualifications were never challenged by opposing family law lawyers - presumably because they didn't bother to read the clearly posted practice restrictions placed on Carter's CPO membership profile. Seems to me that if Carter is found guilty of fraud - the unaddressed fact will be that he was only able to perpetrate such a fraud because the third parties who hired him - family services and assorted family law lawyers - systemically failed to vett his unchallenged status as an "expert witness". Or am I missing something? Put simply, if Carter is found to be a fraudster - then the question which begs to be asked/answered is whether or not the third parties who failed to vett his CPO registration were negligent? Isn't that part of why litigants hire lawyers - to protect them from bogus "expert" witnesses?
The news today says the SCC will hear a couple of (illegal?)jury vetting cases. I wonder if any of the wrongful conviction (via Charles Smith) cases involved questionable jury vetting. Imagine the irony of the formal qualifications of the crown's expert (negligently?) not be vetted even as the crown (illegaly?)vetts the jury pool!!
If such a dual abuse occurred - wouldn't the person wrongfully convicted be eligible for double the compensation they would ordinarily receive?
Thanks for the post. Just love those pandas!
Post a Comment