[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
April 25, 1903


JAMA. 1903;XL(17):1148-1149. doi:10.1001/jama.1903.02490170032008

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


In a recent trial in Detroit the judge criticised the law of Michigan regarding the admission of expert evidence as being defective. A physician was on the witness stand who, as a county official, had made an autopsy and a chemical analysis of stomach contents. In the cross-examination it was attempted to draw out his opinion on certain chemical points as an expert, his testimony having chiefly been as to facts. In response to objections made by opposing counsel the judge said the matter was a simple one; if the witness was not a fully qualified expert he ought not to be thus cross questioned, that the laws of Michigan did not fully cover this question of the admission of expert evidence, and that there should be further legislation on the subject. If we understand the judge's position, it is that there should be some legal regulation as to who

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview