[rnikander]

A woman once told me that she made $300K/year as an "expert witness", on various topics. She was smart and she said she would study a bit and go testify. It blew my mind. I didn't understand whether she was working for the mafia, or if this was legal, or what. I said something like, "but, wait, you're not an expert. The court allows this?" She didn't understand my problem. She seemed entitled; despite her IQ she may not have understood what an actual expert was. I never got to the bottom of it and lost track of her.

[busyant]

> she may not have understood what an actual expert was.

There is a legal "standard" around the admissibility of expert testimony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard).

The person who got me to testify told me he made around $700 K per year. He drove a ~$200K Maybach so I had no reason to doubt him.

I also met a plaintiff's lawyer who told me, roughly, "If the lawsuit ever sees a jury, the jury never understands the science. It's all about likeability and looking good. I had a juror tell me, 'I picked your side because you had a really nice tie.' So, I always wear a nice tie!"

That was probably a hyperbolic story, but I'm sure there's a lot of truth to it, too.

[vorpalhex]

The court does not want a deep guru on every topic. It effectively wants a bridge between a specialized domain and the court itself (which is made of lay people.)

I would expect an Expert to study on the particulars of a case. In general as long as they are sufficiently narrow I don't see a problem here.

[mschuster91]

I'd rather expect someone as a court-appointed expert that they have relevant, certified experience. In Germany, while judges are legally free to appoint whoever they want as experts unless there exist specially certified experts for the class of assessment[1], the parties involved usually present actual experts to the judge for selection - and the opposing side would challenge the selection of non-qualified experts.

[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__73.html

[irrational]

If someone says they are an expert at nuclear engineering, I expect they can build a working reactor in their basement, not that they have read a pamphlet and might know the difference between fission and fusion.

[vorpalhex]

Your critera excludes most of the NRC.

The court does not need to build a nuclear reactor. They need someone who can help the court understand nuclear.

Your theoretical person may be a bad choice if they have no communication skills.

[heavenlyblue]

They certainly are a bad choice if they are not actually an expert though

[karmakurtisaani]

Let's be honest here: both sides of the case want "their" expert to testify. I.e., someone who has enough knowledge on the topic to push the given narrative convincingly. There is a massive difference between a court case and actual science.

[kwere]

a reason for having specialized courts in specific domains of law instead of laymans in the 18th century enlightenment inspired (outdated) system we have. Also checks and balances on judges, one of the most unaccountable caste there is