Martin Burns explains hot-tubbing & how it helps judges decide cases
Expert testimony in today’s courts is now commonplace. Because it is usually concerned with matters that fall outside the court’s sphere of knowledge, it is often also complicated.
A frustrating process
Traditionally, when expert evidence is given, each party will call one or more expert witnesses whose evidence is intended to help the court understand complex issues and thus support a particular party’s case. Cross-examination is the traditional method for testing that evidence.
This methodology has given rise to a number of concerns. Examining counsel can take individual experts through mind-numbing minutiae of their reports and assumptions. Huge amounts of court time can be spent on cross-examination of each expert in turn. For judges and tribunals who are not experts in a particular subject matter, technical issues can become submerged in a labyrinth
