An Anthropologist as Expert Witness

Abstract

Abstract A substantial literature in anthropology claims that there are inherent epistemological and ethical conflicts for anthropologists serving as expert witnesses. James Rose’s article rightly connects this to a “postmodern turn”. He contrasts it with the anthropology of “greater formal and empirical maturity” represented by my work with Dwight Read and a few others. Rose argues that expert testimony based on the latter type of social anthropology has greater legal probity. I have been an expert witness in forty-one cases. I agree. The bulk of his article seeks to characterize this type of anthropology. He proposes a general distinction between “forensic” and “expert”. I argue that it is better to recognize that the two streams are part of a much wider conflict between science based on experimental demonstration and the long and consistently fruitless debate over idealism versus materialism. My approach is part of the former. The conflict between Postmodernism and Positivism is part of the latter. In this article I recall the main intellectual positions that mark the two streams, including landmarks in the anthropology of law. I then address the issues Rose discusses in general terms. I then describe my activities in three specific cases. I conclude with recommendations regarding certification.