On Cop-Experts

The 9th Circuit blog has an interesting post about a predictable “cop as expert” case (United States v. Freeman, __ F.3d __, Slip. Op. 7071 (9th Cir. June 18, 2007), decision available here.)  In this case, like most of them, the 9th Circuit turns a blind eye to the fact that prosecutors are able to put cops (lacking a graduate degree, and usually a college degree) on the stand and have the offer “expert” testimony about “code words” and stuff like that.  But, since the people being prosecuted are poor, it doesn’t really matter if they spend most of their lives in jail on that kind of “evidence.” 

But, the blog brings it all home when it writes:

For Further Reading: Despite its strong points, Freeman ultimately illustrates the unjust “government expert” exception to FRE 702 – federal courts routinely allow sloppy government “experts” in criminal cases that would never cut it as defense witnesses, or as plaintiff experts in civil cases. For example, imagine a plaintiff’s expert in a federal personal injury case, who wanted to testify about the “true” motivations of a witness that said “he wished to get off the telephone while driving.” This would never be tolerated in a federal civil case, but it happened in Freeman. Id. at 7080-81.

The blog has some comments on how Freeman might be of use, since it has to resort to the ol “Harmless Error” trick to put one of “those people” in jail.