> The following LA Times think piece is interesting mainly for its short
> overview of commonplace misconduct and outright fraud by prosecution
> witnesses.
> [cut]
>>What is particularly galling about this line of argument is that it
> should come from a prosecutor after a litany of scandals over the
> years involving discredited government experts. It is prosecutors who
> often hire experts to testify that any babbling or barking defendant
> is demonstrably sane, and experts who will claim to find a virtual
> portrait of a defendant in blood spatters. These "hired guns" make
> small fortunes working for the government.
The prosecution's biggest liars are cops. And they don't even have to pay them those high expert rates (although they do usually get overtime for their service). If you're ever on a jury, and a cop testifies, he (or she) has lied. It may be something big (such as whose weapon that was found on the ground by the dead body) or something small (such as getting consent for a search so as to avert exclusion of evidence), but, rest assured, if they are on a witness stand, they are lying. Some popular lies, aside from getting "voluntary" consent, are items of evidence being discovered in "plain view" and defendants "reaching" for weapons.
But, yes, the prosecution's experts are just as hired as the defense's, and, usually, less ethical to boot. Oftentimes they are outright quacks who make all their money testifying for the State, including licensed psychologists who "predict" that defendants will be a future danger to society, despite a psychological consensus that such predictions are unscientific (e.g., the Dr. Death referenced in the article). Court-appointed psychiatrists/psychologists are no better either.