I'm sure we all noticed how explicitly biased Dr. Hughes was in the defamation trial.

Taking another look at Dr. Curry's testimony, I noticed possible signs of bias there too.

It should come as no surprise that in an adversarial system, each side would want to choose an expert witness who is favourable to their side.

While in this case, Dr. Hughe's more obvious bias will hurt her credibility more, the situation could easily have been reversed had Dr. Hughes' bias been less apparent and Dr. Curry's more so.

The above reveals a major flaw in the adversarial system which is actually unfair to both sides in the case.

With the above in mind, should we consider granting the accused in either a criminal or a defamation case the right to an inquisitorial hearing on request?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

In that case, the expert witness would have been appointed by the tribunal itself and so likely to present a more objective opinion.

To be fair to Amber Herd, we have not heard her side yet in this trial and what I know so far might make me somewhat biased in Depp's favour. But based on what I believe at present, at least in this case, I imagine that Amber Herd would have opted for an adversarial hearing as an opportunity to better control the narrative.

Given how Depp wasn't all innocent either (though apparently nowhere near as abusive and perhaps more reactive than investigative we can imagine that maybe Depp would have preferred that Herd opt for an adversarial hearing so as to allow him to better control the narrative too.

In that particular case, the right of the accused to an inquisitorial hearing on request would probably have made no difference because Herd would not have requested it.

That said, in the hypothetical scenario that Herd had been telling the truth the whole time and nothing to hide, then she might have opted for an inquisitorial hearing so as to deprive both sides of so much power to control the narrative.

Given how in both civil and criminal cases, men get accused too, I believe that at least in those cases in which the accused is telling the truth and has nothing to hide, he could then opt for an inquisitorial hearing do as to deprive the accuser of excessive control over the narrative.

Given how a female accused might sometimes be telling the truth and have nothing to hide too, the right to an inquisitorial hearing on request would benefit women who are falsely accused of anything too.

Especially given the flaws of the adversarial system, should an accused have a right to an inquisitorial hearing on request?