The Facts

On that day, in the lobby of the building, as I opened the door to my office, I nearly collided with a man bending over my judicial expert’s plaque. We exchanged two brief words of apology. I barely glimpsed the laughing face of his accomplice, who quickly ran up the stairs. Already seated in my car parked in the courtyard, I reflected on the strangeness of the scene. Troubled, I returned. The two men had vanished. Enormous spits were silently dripping down the nameplates of “Expert Witness” and “Cleanliness”…

I realized what had just happened and recalled having already dealt with the two men: they were partners in a Parisian art gallery implicated during a judicial expertise. Long since filed, my report had demonstrated the non-authenticity of the disputed furniture they were offering for sale. Having mentally shelved those individuals, I had to retrieve the file to remember their names.

With that done, I went upstairs to ring the bells in search of them. I found them on the first floor, decorating the offices of a young notary. He opened the door, and I asked him to accompany me. I had him observe the “freshness” of the spits, whose downward trail—despite the verticality of the brass plaques—had stopped. I requested that he inform his clients of my desire to see them immediately. He stammered that their presence fell under professional secrecy. His lips wavered between a smile and a grimace. He eventually complied and relayed my message…

One of the two protagonists soon came down, claiming that neither he nor his accomplice was the author of “these stains.” Faced with his smirk and bad faith, I warned him that, absent immediate apologies, I would not let the matter rest! Instead of conciliatory apologies, his mocking departure inflamed my anger further.

I then decided to lodge a complaint at the police station of my district. Beforehand, I telephoned a colleague who runs an accredited toxicology laboratory, who explained the procedure for DNA sampling from spits. Owning my own laboratory, I immediately carried out the sampling with swabs and sterilized cotton, strictly following the indicated procedure.

The Complaint and Civil Action

One had to be very dissatisfied indeed to wait at the police station for more than two and a half hours before an officer finally recorded my complaint, on June 23, 2005. The officer promised that a specialist would come to take another sample. As days passed and no one appeared, we were forced to clean the plaques: the brass was tarnishing.

Having consulted my lawyer, I filed a complaint with a civil party petition before the Paris Public Prosecutor against person or persons unknown, on the grounds of contempt against a person entrusted with a public service mission. Since my only dealings with these individuals had occurred in the exercise of a judicial mission, this ground seemed appropriate—provided they were indeed the authors of the acts complained of. The required deposit of €1,000 was duly paid. An introductory indictment was issued on October 12, 2006, against persons unknown on the aforesaid grounds.

The Investigation

Questioned on October 13, 2007 by the investigating judge as “assisted witnesses,” the two gallery owners admitted being in the building on the day in question, but denied committing the acts. The judge ordered a saliva sample from both partners. The DNA comparison was conclusive: one of the two accomplices was the author of the spits; the one surprised at the door had not had time to carry out his misdeed.

The Defense’s Argument

The unmasked perpetrator explained before the criminal court that he “was at the time suffering from gastroesophageal reflux disease for which he had been treated since 2005, so that, constantly salivating, it might have happened, purely by chance and accident, that he lost some saliva while going to his notary. He no longer remembered what had happened but, in no case had he intentionally spat on the judicial expert’s plaque.”

He produced a medical certificate from his treating physician stating that he had “suffered since 2005 from an expectorant cough linked to gastroesophageal reflux causing injury to a vocal cord.” His lawyer also submitted to the investigating judge a second medical certificate from Professor B., indicating that he suffered from “a condition causing burping and expectorations.”

The Dismissal Order

Despite the exemplary diligence of the investigating judge, the latter rendered, on April 1, 2008, an order of dismissal. He found that “the alleged facts were not corroborated by the sole witness present during C. B.’s passage, and that the failure of the complainant to appear before investigators deprived the genetic analyses and comparisons of any probative value.”

However, the Public Prosecutor joined the civil party, which appealed against this order. He sought confirmation of the challenged decision, namely the indictment of the author of the spits. For his part, the civil party’s lawyer requested that the order of indictment be overturned, advancing the serious elements filed in the record: the DNA tests and the testimony of an assistant corroborating that of the judicial expert.

On January 21, 2009, the Paris Court of Appeal’s Chamber of Investigation issued a ruling ordering, before ruling on the merits, further investigation with a view to indicting the author of the spits for, in Paris, on June 23, 2005, on national territory and within the statute of limitations, having committed an act of contempt by gesture against a person entrusted with a public service mission, in the exercise or on the occasion of the exercise of his mission, namely by spitting on the professional plaque of an expert accredited by the Court of Cassation. Acts provided for and punishable under Article 433.5 of the Penal Code [1].

By judgment of the 10th Chamber of the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance, the court, on the public action, declared the defendant guilty of contempt against a person entrusted with a public service mission, and on the civil action, declared the civil party petition admissible, and sentenced the perpetrator of the spits to a criminal fine of €5,000, pursuant to Art. 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [2].

As no appeal was filed by the defendant, this affair ultimately cost the proven perpetrator dearly: ten thousand euros plus attorney’s fees.

At a time when science can expose certain lies through the provision of evidence, it is reassuring for judicial experts to see that the affronts directed at them by dissatisfied litigants do have limits and can be severely reprimanded.

From this judgment, which brings no glory other than proof that one must never lack perseverance to earn respect, we learn the lesson that the judicial expert, though often isolated in the face of the actors in a trial, is not always abandoned by justice.

[2] Art. 475-1 of the CPP – The court shall order the perpetrator of the offense to pay the civil party such sum as it determines, in respect of expenses not borne by the State and incurred by the latter. The court shall take into account fairness or the financial situation of the convicted party. It may, even ex officio, for reasons based on the same considerations, rule that such an order is not warranted. The provisions of this article shall also apply to third-party payers intervening in the proceedings.