Defense pathologists are at a disadvantage when examining the evidence for a trial. They are rarely present at the first post mortem examination of murder victims, and even more rarely get to visit the undisturbed scene of the crime. The scientific and investigational backup teams they can use are not as well-equipped as those working for the government, and occasionally, the assistance of governmental officials is not forthcoming. Additionally, the public may resent the pathologists' appearance for an unsavory defendant. Moreover, certain aspects of the pathologists' professional background and personal convictions may render their contributions to the defense harmful. If the pathologists' qualifications are obviously inferior to those of government pathologists or the pathologists' empathy with political or religious positions of defendants color their professional decisionmaking, then the pathologists should decline working for the defense. When working for the defense, pathologists should confer with the government's pathologists and openly discuss their opinions about evidence. They should present all of their conclusions openly and honestly to their employers, so that the defense knows what the testimony will be including evidence harmful to defendants.