[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
April 9, 1904


JAMA. 1904;XLII(15):960-961. doi:10.1001/jama.1904.02490600026009

The method of appointing expert witnesses has been so much discussed pro and con in every way that court decisions which throw any light on it are welcome. In a recent case in Kentucky1 the appellant pleaded as an error that the two medical witnesses who testified in the case regarding the extent of the plaintiff's injuries were appointed by the court, and that the attorney for the other side had been allowed to make this fact known to the jury. The Court of Appeals decided that the physicians had been appointed by the court under the large discretion which it possessed. The question was not a matter as to how they came to know the facts, but as to the truth of their testimony, and the knowledge on the part of the jury that the witnesses came from the impartial appointment of the judge could not prejudice the