Page images
PDF
EPUB

Secretary Minor: Mr. Page, you were asking about criminal
The last section of the bill reads as follows:

cases.

"6. No expert witness shall be paid or receive or contract for, as compensation in any given case for his services as such, a sum in excess of the ordinary witness fees provided by law, unless the court before whom such witness is to appear or has appeared by its written order filed in the cause allows the party to pay a larger sum. Any expert witness who shall directly or indirectly receive or contract for a larger amount than that to which he is legally entitled under this Act, and any person who shall pay or contract to pay such witness a larger sum than that to which he is legally entitled, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not to exceed one year, or both, in the discretion of the court."

Mr. Page: Would not this be the result of that-would not every man charged with an offense, if he did not have an expert, ask the court to give him an expert witness?

Secretary Minor: It is in the discretion of the court.

Mr. Page: I see your point, but it would not be in the discretion of the court. Would not every man indicted for any offense ask for an expert witness?

Mr. Frick: There are very few cases in which expert witnesses are needed.

Mr. Patteson: He might not want an expert witness.

Mr. Sipe: Mr. President, I have only a word or two to say. I am utterly opposed to the bill, on the ground that it is not needed at all. After an experience of thirty years at the bar, my lack of faith and confidence in expert testimony has grown to

such an extent that now there is no class of testimony offered in court for which I have so little regard, and for which the juries of the country have so little regard, as expert medical evidence. I believe it is fortunate for our people and fortunate for the courts and for the administration of justice that this is the case. Experts are human, and they would be generally, and under this bill professionally, engaged to demonstrate a proposition; that is their function, and we have all, I suppose every lawyer has seen, how little attention a jury will pay, when fifteen or sixteen pages of typewriting are read in half an hour to an expert, and he is asked, on that hypothesis, supposing that testimony to be true, what would you say was the condition of that man's mind, was he sane and competent to make a will, or not. There is not a jury in the Commonwealth that pays any attention to that. The same thing is true in criminal cases, and I am glad it is true, because the truth should be evolved from all the evidence in the conclusions drawn by the jury. My objection is that this bill brings in a feature dangerous to both sides, that is, it gives to expert testimony the imprimatur of the court's endorsement. When that report comes in, the witness cannot be otherwise than partial; in that report he will take one view or the other, and he is going to argue to support it because he is human. Under this bill he will have the backing of the court in carrying out that argument, and that is what I do not want to see. I want to see these people that raise forty different questions stand or fall outside of the backing of the court. It is very rarely that there is a disagreement of a jury on account of any expert testimony; the truth is generally arrived at regardless of any technical discussion of experts, no matter whether it is a civil or a criminal case. I believe it is better to leave the law where it is and the experts where they are, than to give them the influence of the elevated position of a quasi court officer.

Mr. Frick: Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is to use expert testimony as a means for the discovery of truth, and not for the demonstration of a theory. Of course all witnesses are so used, as well as experts. cannot do without expert

witnesses.

You

The report and the bill as amended were then put to vote; a division was called for and the bill was adopted upon a rising vote, ayes eight, noes seven.

Mr. Whitehead: Mr. President, I ask that the Bar Association recommend to the Legislature that they pass the bill giving the Commonwealth the right to peremptory challenge in criminal cases. That is a supplemental report to the report we have just adopted.

Mr. Page: I second Mr. Whitehead's motion.

Mr. Frick: Mr. President, this resolution was simply to recommend one bill. I am in favor of the gentleman's motion, but I think we ought to get at it properly. That is a little too indefinite.

Mr. Stephenson: As I understand, you want one challenge?

Mr. Whitehead: No, I asked for two.

The President: The Chair rules that this resolution ought to be in writing.

Mr. Patteson: Mr. President, while he is writing it, I have a resolution to offer. I really have two, but one of them I do not think will cause any discussion at all; I will offer that one first. It relates to the right of appeal, and the question is whether or not the cost of appeals may not be reduced.

Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the president, who shall inquire and report to the next meeting of this Association

(1) What amendment of the law is necessary in order that the cost of taking appeals to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia may be reduced?

(2) Whether the clerks of the Supreme Court at Richmond, Staunton and Wytheville should be paid appropriate fixed salaries, instead of salaries and fees, as at present?

(3) Whether it is practicable to permit appeals in any cases to be taken on typewritten copies of the record, and if so, how many copies should be required?

The Legislature meets next winter, and I think this resolution should go there, as it does not bind the Association to anything. The matter ought to be investigated, as appeals in other states, especially south of us, are very much cheaper than they are here.

Mr. John T. Harris, Jr.: Mr. President, I am heartily in favor of the principle of this resolution. I see no reason why the cost of appeal in Virginia should not be very greatly reduced. Congress has adopted a statute which facilitates appeals and very largely reduces the cost in cases in federal courts. I think an act can be modeled after that statute that will largely reduce the cost of appeals. The only objection I have to this is that it defers the matter until after the next meeting of the Legislature.

Mr. Patteson: I suggest that we add that a committee be appointed to present the bill to the next Legislature.

Mr. Harris: I think you should modify your resolution, and instead of saying that a committee be appointed, you should say that it is the sense of the Association.

Mr. Montague: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that I trust the resolution will be adopted. I cut from the Times Dispatch a few days before this meeting an editorial on this subject, and yesterday Mr. Burges handed me this same editorial which had been cut also from the Richmond Times Dispatch by somebody down in his section and sent to him, suggesting that the Association ought to take some action. I will not read this editorial except to say that in no uncertain way it states that the cost of taking appeals in our State has been shown by the facts to be too

large. The editorial I take it is from the pen of Major Hemphill. The last two paragraphs, which refer to the headline "Up to the Bar Association", reads as follows, referring to the expense of taking an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia:

"This matter ought to be threshed out fully at the meeting of the Bar Association, and it is to be hoped that those lawyers who feel the injustice and the iniquity of the present system will fight for this reform. The clerks of the Supreme Court of Appeals should have fair salaries, but nothing more. Is it possible that the silence of the members of the bar is to be construed as an acquiescence in the view that the clerk should receive higher compensation than the chief judicial officer of the Commonwealth?"

Mr. Patteson: Mr. President, it is suggested that this amendment be added, which is satisfactory to the mover of the resolution:

(4) And to present to the next session of the General Assembly such bill as it shall prepare on those lines.

Mr. Patteson's resolution as amended was then adopted.

Mr. Patteson: Now, Mr. President, I have another resolution on which I shall ask for a vote. I will first read it, and then dwell on it only four or five minutes, though I have worked on it about thirty years.

Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia, at its next session, be requested to amend Section 3211 of the Code of Virginia (1904), so as to permit recovery by motion in all cases of torts and damages, as well as on contract.

I do not care for this resolution to go to any committee; I simply want it voted on by the Association. At the last session of the General Assembly this matter in the shape of a bill was offered by a member of the Association who is here present, and

« PreviousContinue »