Articles Posted in Researching Experts

In Testimony From Experts In Demand Tyler Kekewich of the Financial Post describes expert witnesses:

You’ve seen them in movies and watched them on television. They are the superstars of a trial and their testimony can make or break a lawyer’s case. They’re expert witnesses — from coroners to accountants, engineers and scientists — and judges and juries hang on their every word. They can be the difference between acquittal or conviction or reaping a huge damage award versus being left with nothing but a big legal bill to pay.

Kekewich also shares the five traits of a successful expert witness:

In Jury Psychology Can Undermine Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses authors Neil Goldberg, John Freedenberg, Joseph Mooney, and Joseph Hanna write that cross examination of plaintiff’s expert witness should be geared to thwart the emotional hijacking of jurors that plaintiffs endeavor to secure. This strategy includes hiring a jury consultant expert witness. In this excerpt they write on anger management.

The adversarial legal system is dependent on the assumptin that decision makers are rational, unbiases, and not strongly predisposed. The plaintiffs’ bar recognizes that this paradigm can be altered by their trial strategy, which can benefit the plaintiff’s case mightily.

In recognition of this fact, the plaintiffs’ bar has developed aggressive discovery initiatives, questioning techniques, order of proof strategies and expert witnes presentations that, among other things, are geared towards capitalizing on the tarnished reputation of Corporate America.

In Jury Psychology Can Undermine Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses authors Neil Goldberg, John Freedenberg, Joseph Mooney, and Joseph Hanna write that cross examination of plaintiff’s expert witness should be geared to thwart the emotional hijacking of jurors that plaintiffs endeavor to secure. This strategy includes hiring a jury consultant expert witness. In this excerpt they explain the role of jurors in analyzing the credibility of expert witnesses:

.

Excerpted from Jury Psychology Can Undermine Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses, For the Defense, December 2007.

In Jury Psychology Can Undermine Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses authors Neil Goldberg, John Freedenberg, Joseph Mooney, and Joseph Hanna write that cross examination of plaintiff’s expert witness should be geared to thwart the emotional hijacking of jurors that plaintiffs endeavor to secure. This strategy includes hiring a jury consultant expert witness. In this excerpt they explain the role of jurors in analyzing the credibility of expert witnesses:

Even before the Enron scandal, a survey found “that a majority of jurors are predisposed to believe an individual’s version of events in any dispute with a corporation.” The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 13, 1991 at B5. After the litany of scandals that followed Enron, the problem was compounded. The Wall Street Journal verified what many trial lawyers have recognized; increasingly we are confronted with a “new class of jurors.”

The members of this class have been displaced by economic chaos – environmental disasters, and “down-sizing” – and they are now feeling insecure, vulnerable and bitter. They blame, among others, Corporate America for their plight. These individuals contribute sigificantly to the volatility of jury verdicts.

In Using Vocational Rehab Experts and Life-Care Planners to Prove General Damages, author Geoffrey S. Wells discusses the use of vocational rehabilitation and life-care planning experts. He begins by telling us that the use of a vocational rehabilitation expert and a life care planning expert witness is even more important today than it has been in the past.

This is due in part to the jury’s overall skepticisim on general damage awards. It is not uncommon today to hear a juror during jury selection say something to the effect that “I have no problem awarding damages that are actually provable, such as lost wages or medical costs in the past and the future, but I have a real problem with pain and suffering damages.” The plainfiff lawyer’s ability therefore to provide actual economic numbers for the jurors is more important today than it has ever been in the past.

More to follow from The Advocate, November 2007.

In Jury Psychology Can Undermine Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses authors Neil Goldberg, John Freedenberg, Joseph Mooney, and Joseph Hanna write that cross examination of plaintiff’s expert witness should be geared to thwart the emotional hijacking of jurors that plaintiffs endeavor to secure. This strategy includes hiring a jury consultant expert witness. They explain:

Most trial attorneys are familiar with the Chicago study that found that 85 percent of jurors vote after deliberation in a manner consistent with the impressions they developed after the opening statements. A study conducted by Angela Abel of Decision Quest distributed at DRI’s 2006 Preeminent Trial Lawyer Seminar found that the ultimate evaluation a juror reaches in a case on both liability and damages essentially remained unchanged by the voir dire process. One interpretation of these two poignant nuggets of information is that at the moment of accountability, when many jurors engage in the deliberation process, the critical factor that most significantly influences how they analyze the case is their longstanding predispositions.

Determining what those longstanding predispositions are and what themes will influence jurors the most are reasons defendants in catastrophic injury cases more and more find that there is great value in engaging in “mock jury” exercises.

In How to Use Experts to Prove the Plaintiff’s Case, Thomas M. Demsey advises attorneys on how to find the right fit with an expert witness. In complex factual situations such as products liability cases Demsey states that “Too often the initial consideration is not well thought-out.” Demsey gives tips on lines of communication with your products liability expert witness.

….experts often become, or give the appearance of, advocates for your position. This will also detract from the wtiness’s impartial credibililty and is easily picked up by a jury. Your expert should be willing to concede to points that are well taken during cross-examination because this adds to his or her credibility. During the rehearsal of testimony, however, you must emphasize that the main thrust of yor expert’s opinion must be consistency, and he or she must have the courage to stand by their opinions no matter the vigor of the cross-examination or the onslaught of deeming questions. This is the true test of the ability of an expert to testify and clearly separates the “wannabes” from the “real deal.”

From How to Use Experts to Prove the Plaintiff’s Case, Thomas M. Dempsey, The Advocate Magazine, January 2008.

n How Attorneys Can Best Utilize Their Medical Expert Witness: A Medical Expert’s Perspective, Dr. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, FRSSAf, FAPA, writes that expert witness testimony depends on finding an appropriate match for your case. This excerpt deals with computerized materials.

Experts’ styles vary. For example, my specific preferences may not be generalizable, particularly if the expert is not very computer savvy. Personally, I like to summarize information as I read it, extracting key information. This I will do digitally by dictation, generally referencing dates, pages and medical professionals. This saves enormous time in reviewing cases later. I also like to use text documents (e.g. in Microsoft Word). This allows me to fashion the detail and extract what is relevant without wasting time rewriting.

In this regard, scanning by the attorney is worthwhile, particularly if text (as opposed to pictures [e.g. TIFF, PICT]) is produced. This text is editable in summary documents, and can be searched almost instantaneously. It becomes a great time saver. Depositions should always be ordered in text form so they can have the relevant facets extracted. Hard copies should also be available. The attorney should ensure that the expert knows what has been duplicated on CD and paper. However, scanned computerized material supplied as PDFs that cannot be converted into text has an enormous downside of taking up time in locating particular pages. Consequently, an index is essential for any scanned non-text documents, and additionally

In How to Use Experts to Prove the Plaintiff’s Case, Thomas M. Demsey advises attorneys on how to find the right fit with an expert witness. In complex factual situations Demsey states that “Too often the initial consideration is not well thought-out.” Finding the right medical malpractice expert witness involves optimizing lines of communication.

Make sure you go over in detail the theories of your case about which your expert will testify. Success often relies upon you laying out precise legal language for your case so that your expert can phrase his or her testimony accordingly.

Make sure that your expert does not go beyond the realm of his or her area of expertise. This means that you may need multiple experts to deal with a particular issue. It is better to have two creditable experts whose testimony may somewhat overlap, than to have one expert who is so stretching the limit so his or her expertise that even in the areas in which he or she is comfortable are suspect and not believable.

In How to Use Experts to Prove the Plaintiff’s Case, Thomas M. Demsey advises attorneys on how to find the right fit with an expert witness. In complex factual situations such as products liability cases Demsey states that “Too often the initial consideration is not well thought-out.” Finding the right products liability expert witness involves asking for recommendations from other attorneys and making sure you can afford the expert.

Not only must the expert be available for consultation and advice during the discovery part of your csae, but you should not feel that you cannot afford to seek this consultation when it is necessary. This does not mean you are constantly running to the individual for consultation on trivial matters, but you must be able to contact this person whenever the need truly arises.

Sometimes an expert will not be able to testify for you, but that same expert can lead you to others who would be able to testify in your case. Furthermore, an expert can be used as a consultant, and this alone is often worth the time, effort and expense of consulting an expert.