Bearing Witness

One of the relatively unique components of forensic pathology is the experience of testifying in court. While it isn’t something we do on a daily basis (or even weekly), being well-prepared is an important professional responsibility. After all, another person’s life and freedom can be in the balance.

The most common situation in which we’re called to testify are homicides. Usually these involve gunshot wounds, but they may also involve blunt force, sharp force, or even caretaker neglect. Yet even deaths ruled ‘accidental’ in manner may end up in a court of law – for example, motor vehicle accidents. Occasionally, if there are concerns about the quality of medical care or negligence, we end up involved in civil lawsuits for wrongful death or medical malpractice.

Forensic pathologists are considered “expert witnesses” when they give testimony. The opposite of “expert witness” is a “fact witness.” Fact witnesses are only allowed to testify to their own personal experience – what they’ve seen or heard directly. In contrast, expert witnesses are able to interpret evidence (e.g. autopsy findings) and offer opinions. In order to be allowed to testify as an expert, one’s qualifications must first be recognized and approved by the court. As such, the initial questions we answer are fairly mundane and directed toward eliciting our training history, board certifications, and licensures.

In TV courtroom dramas, testifying is a fraught experience – the question-and-answer sessions are witty, emotionally charged, and often end with some unexpected bombshell. As usual, though, real life fails to be quite as entertaining. My job as a forensic pathologist is to remain emotionally neutral and do the best job I can explaining my findings in a clear and concise manner. The questions, from both prosecution and defense attorneys, are usually straightforward and fair – focused on the autopsy, and what can or cannot be concluded from them. Most importantly, I don’t have any professional stake in the outcome of a trial. The determination of the defendant’s guilt or innocence most often depends on investigative findings beyond those identified at autopsy. Take the example of gunshot wounds – while I can enumerate and describe the individual wounds, I don’t have any information which might identify the person holding the gun. It’s a common misconception that the forensic pathologist is on the “side” of the prosecution – probably because we’re almost always called to testify by the prosecution. But if our ruling doesn’t support the presence of foul play or trauma, any criminal charges fizzle out long before a trial. The evidence I present may not be completely favorable to the prosecution’s version of events, either, which is why it’s so important the defense attorney has the opportunity to bring this information to light.

There are occasions where the autopsy findings are more critical – perhaps in distinguishing a homicide from a suicide or accident. In these cases, an opposing expert witness may be hired by the defense team to critique my report or offer a contrasting opinion. It’s crucial to not take this development personally. The legal system is adversarial by nature, and those charged with a crime are entitled to the best defense possible. Sometimes that requires obtaining another opinion, much like any living patient can seek a second opinion for a serious diagnosis. Maintaining this neutral mentality helps one to stay focused, even in the face of questions which might feel inflammatory or misdirected.

The first time in court can feel very intimidating, with two tables full of lawyers, a judge, and at least twelve jurors paying close attention. For any witness, remembering that you’re only there to speak to the truth might help to calm any nerves. Maintaining a neutral mindset helps keep the focus where it should be – on the science.