How Paid Experts Help Exonerate Police After Deaths in Custody
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
This appears to be something similar. It must really pay to be an “expert”.
1 - https://www.propublica.org/article/these-professors-make-mor...
i too had no idea of such a thing until i attended (as a guest of a columbia econ phd student) an invited talk by susan athey at columbia where she alluded to the exact same consulting rates (though not for this exactly). at the time, it just didn't register because i couldn't connect it to anything i'd ever had experience with (i was an undergrad). that student has now gone on (after graduating) to work in a consulting group that actually does work on M&A type stuff (though she doesn't bill at that rate). and i am now at one of the schools mentioned in your linked article (as a phd student) and this is so well known that it's completely unremarkable.
Thing is these cases are probably more fair than cases with non cop dependents. In particular if the taser manufacturer says they're safe that's something the jury should know.
The authors of this article might not know this or understand what it means, but US criminal courts are an adversarial system. All the opinions the authors here have the prosecution could present to the jury, or allude to on cross.
The issue with flame bait articles like this is that they don't help incarcerate dirty cops, but harm everyday innocent defendents. You're on trial for murder, and like most cases the cops and witnesses are bought and paid for, and you can't even hire an expert witness because some government official read a mislead NYT article and thought it was unfortunate the Chauvin prosecution had to put in effort cross examining witnesses! Despite him being convicted on all counts!