by

Your Witness: Lessons On Cross-Examination and Life From Great Chicago Trial Lawyers includes a chapter by Cook County criminal lawyer Sam Adam entitled Eight Lessons From a Lifetime at 26th Street. Lesson #1:

Look at the trial itself as an entity rather than as a collection of witnesses. Remember that the ultimate purpose of cross-examination is to get those gold nuggets for closing argument. Know every fact about the case – and perhaps especially your opponent’s case – before you plan your cross-examination. This should usually include viewing the scene. A well-prepared lawyer who has a superior knowledge of the facts has an enormous advantage going in.

More to come from Your Witness: Lessons On Cross-Examination and Life From Great Chicago Trial Lawyers

by

In Anatomy of a Witness List Hon. Michael L. Stern writes that “each witness should tell the next part of your story and move your case forward.”

The order in which witnesses are called at trial can make or break a case. The process of preparing a witness list, including careful consideration of who to call, when and why, may forecast a verdict even before counsel step into the courtroom for trial.

It is vital to determine which witnesses will provide maximum impact at different points int a trial. Each (expert) witness must be evaluated as a potential “opener,” “closer,” or “sleeper.” Some witnesses can persuasively establish or refute liability on damages issues. Others are better for introduction of documentary or other exhibits. Sometimes witnesses must be called adversely for essential information or taking the edge off problem areas. Above all, calling any witnesses requires strategic thinking, not simply conjuring up an arbitrary list of persons with potential testimony.

Continue reading

by

In Your Witness: Lessons On Cross-Examination and Life From Great Chicago Trial Lawyers leading trial lawyers illustrate essential rules including:

*Never ask a question to which you do not know the answer – unless it doesn’t matter, or you have nowhere else to go.

* Always listen to a witness’s answer before asking your next question.

Continue reading

by

Wikipedia tells us that “forensic engineering is the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate/function as intended, causing personal injury for example. In Industry Standards, Technology Associates, the forensic engineering expert witness company has this to say on industry standards.

Because custom and practice is (by definition) something that is actually in existence, and is therefore accepted, there is an understandable tendency to consider it “acceptable.” This conclusion is not automatically justified, however, for two reasons. First, custom and practice within a given industry generally varies over a wide range, from bad to good, from unsafe to safe. For example, although many punch presses are fitted with two-hand controls to prevent the operator from having either hand in the dangerous area as the ram of the press descends, it is common for the operator-or his employer-to “tie down” one of the controls so that the press can be operated with only one hand, leaving the other hand free to inadvertently enter the dangerous area as the ram descends. (The reason for this dangerous practice is that it speeds up production.) Thus, this form of custom and practice is not acceptable as an industry standard. It follows that only good custom and practice should be used as an industry standard.

by

In Machine Guarding: The Second Alternative, equipment expert witness Albert Rauck, P.E., CSP, writes on machinery safety devices:

The second alternative can, when used in conjunction with the design consideration, be very effective in eliminating the dangerous condition. Safety devices include the whole range of machine guarding techniques such as fixed or automatic mechanical guards, safety mats, light curtains, safety gates, machine interlocks etc. Care must be taken to assure that machines guards are not removed for maintenance and not reinstalled or the guards are not defeated by workers in an effort to speed up the process.

The third alternative should be employed when the first and second alternatives cannot be used to eliminate the dangerous condition. The provision of warning devices should alert the exposed people to the specific danger and be consistently applied. These devices include signage, warning alarms (horns and lights), warning strips and ropes etc.

by

Wikipedia tells us that “forensic engineering is the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate/function as intended, causing personal injury for example. In Industry Standards, Technology Associates, the forensic engineering expert witness company has this to say on industry standards.

A standard can be defined as a document issued by a recognized agency, and dealing with design and/or safety requirements relating to a specific product or type of activity. Such agencies include the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (051-IA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). OSHA standards are generally legally binding for an employer, while ANSI standards are generally of an advisory nature. The term “industry standard,” however, is ordinarily taken to have a broader meaning, including formal standards as just defined, and also including designs and procedures not required in formal standards, though prevailing in a specific industry, and which represent generally accepted custom and practice.

by

In Machine Guarding: The Second Alternative, equipment expert witness Albert Rauck, P.E., CSP, writes on machinery safety devices:

The first thought should be given to the design of the process. Remember the danger results from the combination of hazard and exposure. Eliminate either one and the dangerous condition no longer exists. Is it possible to eliminate the human from the process through automation? Can the operator be relocated to a safer position? Can the process be changed to eliminate the hazard? Obviously the ideal time to make these decisions is during the design of the process but other opportune times are during a renovation, machine rebuild etc. Often it is not possible to completely design out the dangerous condition but it is possible to greatly reduce the risk to a more acceptable level. The reason that this is the highest priority is that it eliminates the dangerous condition whereas the other alternatives do not.

by

In When the Going Gets Tough – Analyzing Concurrent Delays, Thelen Reid’s Andrew D. Ness writes that “Proving or disproving a construction delay claim is a substantial undertaking in the best of circumstances. But the analysis of construction delays takes a major leap in difficulty when there are multiple sources or causes of delay with interrelated effects.” The construction expert witness can opine on what Ness describes as:

Multiple Activities – Multiple Delays
The level of complexity steps up considerably when the situation involves different causes of delay acting on different activities, whether at the same time or at different times during the project. For example, take a building project where the owner has delayed structural steel delivery by making late design changes. The contractor has had difficulty excavating the site in order to begin the foundations. How is the overall project delay from these two causes to be apportioned between owner and contractor? Which one is really delaying the project, or are both causes delaying completion?

by

KHB Consulting Services Kenneth H. Brown, Ph.D., provides hazardous materials expert witness and consulting services to attorneys and insurance professionals for cases involving chemicals, paint & coatings and other products which contain chemicals. As an expert witness, Brown:

‘Translates’ chemical jargon into easy-to-understand language so that you can understand the implications.

Recommends what additional documents, information or materials are needed to help with the case.

Continue reading

by

In When the Going Gets Tough – Analyzing Concurrent Delays, Thelen Reid’s Andrew D. Ness writes that “Proving or disproving a construction delay claim is a substantial undertaking in the best of circumstances. But the analysis of construction delays takes a major leap in difficulty when there are multiple sources or causes of delay with interrelated effects.” The construction expert witness can opine on what Ness describes as:

One Activity – Multiple Delays
The most straightforward situation involving multiple sources of delay occurs when there are two separate causes of delay to a single work activity. For example, an owner-directed change may have caused a particular activity to be less efficient while at the same time the contractor may have used a smaller crew or less efficient equipment than planned to perform the work. How then is the extended duration of the activity to be apportioned between owner and contractor? Almost every impact claim contains issues of this nature. It may seem apparent that the owner-directed change had an adverse effect on the time to perform a particular activity, but whether the impact was substantial or insignificant is debatable, and it is a challenge for either side to quantify the effect specifically.