Expert are allowed to express opinions, but are they allowed to express knowingly false opinions?
For example, somebody uploaded an image promoting inter-racial hate. I'am invited to the court as an expert, and asked "Here is the HTTPS log with the IP address of the defendant, his client certificate (he authorized with client certificate). Does it prove that the defendant uploaded this image?".
And I testify: HTTPS is secure hyper TEXT transfer protocol, but we have an image here, not text. Image can not be uploaded with hyper TEXT transfer protocol.
Yes, it's arguably perjury. And for something as obvious as this, it would be hard to claim that it's just a difference of opinion.
But for expert opinions that involve substantial interpretation of evidence, it's hard enough to exclude under the Daubert standard, let alone to make a case for perjury.
I would like to note the Daubert standard applies to how a court actions (how it accept or reject expert opinion).
While our subject is not court actions, but the expert actions - was he committing a perjury. It's a different topic.
But I understand the difficulties, it's a subtle issue. I even admit it could be just ignorance of the "expert",
without intentions - just and accident.
I do not pretend to provide a correct and well formulated accusation, I mean there are ways to explore. It would of course require time and efforts (collect facts, speak with the ex-prisoner, reading the case materials, questioning the "expert").
Did the "expert" have motives? Was he instructed by superiors how to testify?
Did he really perform those thousands of tests - according to the article this phrase was
a common cliche circulating between FBI agents, so probably he didn't really perform the experiments.
There might be facts allowing to differentiate this case either as a intended pejury, criminal negligence or an accident.
BTW, another surprising thing in this article is how little care the court gives to the fate of this guy. They were just told about 8 to 10 cases when similar hairs were from different people, and nevertheless sentenced the guy without any other reliable evidence.
For example, somebody uploaded an image promoting inter-racial hate. I'am invited to the court as an expert, and asked "Here is the HTTPS log with the IP address of the defendant, his client certificate (he authorized with client certificate). Does it prove that the defendant uploaded this image?".
And I testify: HTTPS is secure hyper TEXT transfer protocol, but we have an image here, not text. Image can not be uploaded with hyper TEXT transfer protocol.
Is it a perjury?