> I'm not so sure we should be allowing challenges to expert witness, with no evidence
Any challenge is "allowed" in the sense that the parties can try to convince the judge there is a flaw.
The question is one of burden of proof: should the expert prove they have a trustworthy result, or should the expert testimony stand on their credibility alone, and the defense scramble to poke holes into it armed with incomplete information.
For a system that can put people into jail for life and that acts as a direct extension of state power, it's obvious the latter can have disastrous consequences. Effectively, any one who acquirers the "judicial expert" title can put people in jail at their whim.
Any challenge is "allowed" in the sense that the parties can try to convince the judge there is a flaw.
The question is one of burden of proof: should the expert prove they have a trustworthy result, or should the expert testimony stand on their credibility alone, and the defense scramble to poke holes into it armed with incomplete information.
For a system that can put people into jail for life and that acts as a direct extension of state power, it's obvious the latter can have disastrous consequences. Effectively, any one who acquirers the "judicial expert" title can put people in jail at their whim.