PS

Perhaps one improvement that could be made is that expert testimony be initially given in the form of a written report read into the court record verbatim, followed by the normal inquiry by the various lawyers involved. At least then, a more accurate view of such an expert's findings could be heard by jurors.

I doubt though, that any lawyers would appreciate this idea - as they clearly would want to block facts contrary to their clients interest, from getting to the jury. But that is precisely what is wrong. Speaking as both a prior juror and as a prior witness, it seems to me that the jury should always have all the facts - period - like or or not. How else are they to render a fair and righteous verdict.