I was reading about the Phil Spector trial, and I saw that Michael Baden was testifying for the defense. What concerns me is that his wife is one of the defense attorneys. This seems like a big conflict of interest. It also appears that he gets involved in of many of these celebrity trials. I was wondering if he’s involved because he is very competent or because he’s a hired gun.
I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. Baden has a remarkable body of work that stretches back to the early 60s.
As for the conflict of interest, that was a point the prosecution raised. The LA Times wrote a few weeks ago:
I don’t think his decision to participate in this case reflects poorly on him, certainly not so much that it would outweigh all of the positives on his resume. As for his wife, I think it does reflect poorly on her, and if Spector is convicted it could be devastating to her career. I guess we won’t know for sure until the verdict is in (the jury has been out since 9/10, and reported a deadlock on 9/18), but if the jurors decide not to give creedence to Baden’s forensic analysis because he’s married to the defense attorney, then she’s done.
Realistically speaking, no party in a lawsuit is ever going to call a witness with testimony that intentionally did not favor their claim. (Although a lawyer friend of mine is currently involved in a trial in which their best witness is an “expert” from the other side who is so far outfield on testimony that the judge actually criticized the council that called the expert for not reigning her in before she did too much damage. “I’m doing the best I can, your honor,” is apparently not something you want to say regarding control of your own expert witness as his or her crackpot theories progressively undermine whatever creditibilty retained.)
Although it’s probably bad form to call a relative, the fact is that they’re being called becuase their expert opinion serves to advocate the position of that party. If his claims are grounded and factual and all the prosecution can do is respond with ad hominem attacks on his credibility based on who he sleeps with, as a jury member I’d regard that as pretty weak.
Stranger
A small number of forensic pathologists are disproportionately involved in “celebrity” cases not solely due to competence or availability for hire, but because they crave the limelight. People like Baden, Cyril Wecht, and in earlier days Thomas Noguchi and Milton Helpern have historically gravitated to these cases (the prototype for the “celebrity” forensic pathologist may have been Britain’s Bernard Spilsbury).
While all of these people are/were skilled in their field, many have been involved in repeated controversies over their conclusions, bitter fights with rivals and even alleged malfeasance in office (Wecht). I can’t help but be skeptical of the conclusions of forensic pathologists who seem so desperate for attention that they routinely show up on Larry King or other talk forums to dissect the latest sensational crime (my term for this is “forensic whore”).
Note: while not a forensic pathologist myself, I’ve done forensic rotations and worked with a number of them, and been impressed by their expertise not only in
strictly forensic medicine but as physicians in general. None of them however had a prime goal of being on CNN every night.