[Iwo Jima]

I can only go by what I read and hear. But it appears to me that more often than not the defense does not hire their own experts to check the prosecution's experts.

This was made painfully apparent in our crime lab scandal in Houston, where DNA tests were never run but the expert just made up results that fit the prosecution's case, and similar outrages. It only came to light when they were ordered to retest things in bulk. Any of these problems would have been known if a defense attorney had done anything to question the tests. But when asked about it, they seemed puzzled by the question, like, "Why would I question the prosecution's expert?"

[Sue Bob]

How lazy!

[erton1]

In cases where some type of physical evidence is an issue in a case, forensics experts are normally retained to test the evidence,whether it is hand writing or bullets. Believe it or not, it is sometimes easier to get an expert if you are a court appointed att'y rather than retained, because all you have to do is petition the court for the authority and funds, and I never had a judge turn down my request for fear that a denial creates reversible error prior to trial, which is the last thing he wants. When retained, you have to get the expert fee from the client, which is problematic at times, or even convince the client of the necessity of the expert.