Is Cross-Examination a Viable Opportunity for Your Expert to Educate? Yes!

Most good experts know that their role is one of educating the jurors to their point of view, to their opinion. This is true whether the expert is responding to direct or cross examination.

Experts are usually adept at looking at counsel during a question posed in direct examination, then spontaneously looking at the jurors for the greater part of their response. They are indeed fulfilling their role as educators.

However, when it comes to cross, too many experts become locked in an eye-to-eye duel with opposing counsel, mightily defending their opinion. They stop educating. One of the easiest ways to counter this tendency is to encourage your experts to maintain good eye contact with the jurors even during cross. Not, of course, as the question is being asked, but during the expert’s response, as long as that response is more than just a few words.

It is certainly more challenging, but a well-prepared expert can usually find a way to restate his/her opinion, and during that portion of their response, look out to the jurors. Just as the expert will or did during direct.

Practice with your expert! Role-play a few cross examination questions to support your expert’s ability to continue his/her educating-the-jurors function even as the expert is in a more defensive posture.

Eye contact can make all the difference.

Win the Battle of the Experts

Considerable research has been devoted to figuring out how jurors decide among competing experts, which one to believe.

Not surprisingly, jurors are suspicious of expert motives, and assume that each expert will be biased toward the side that hired the expert.

However, setting that aside, jurors then pay close attention to the disagreements between the experts, how much of the evidence each expert actually speaks to, and how what the expert says fits with the overall presentation of testimony and evidence.

All this is well and good, and reminds us of how important it is for experts to consider their opinions within the context of the entire case.

But the true demarcation, that which often makes one expert the “truth-speaker” for the jurors as opposed to another of the experts, is the plain-spokenness of an expert. Jurors appreciate straight-forward opinions and testimony.  Jurors are suspect of an expert who can only render his or her opinions in jargon or otherwise technical language that impedes juror comprehension.

Lawyers, so thoroughly steeped in the case that they hardly recognize obscure language as such (because they’ve been using it in depos, in motions, etc. for the life of the case)  don’t facilitate the process for jurors because the lawyer is just as likely to ask questions using technical terms as the expert is to respond in like manner.

Get the jurors on your side by prepping your expert to speak in juror-friendly terms.

Refresh your awareness of what jurors will and won’t understand by presenting your expert’s opinions to a focus group. Or to your 15 year old nephew. Either will let you know in no uncertain terms whether the language your expert uses is credible and convincing.

How to Translate the Expert’s Opinions into Expert Testimony

An expert I recently worked with was brilliant, no doubt. His credentials were superb, his authority on the matter in question, well, unquestioned. But his ability to communicate his expertise in a way any lay person (juror) could understand was awful. His deposition was larded with phrases such as: “The administration let other departments in the facility seize the initiative with a consequent fragmentation of the support for educational technologies offered to staff.”

Now to say to such an expert “speak in plain English” would seem a common sense approach to preparing him for Court testimony. The problem is, the expert thinks he is speaking in plain English, and that any idiot should easily be able to understand him.

Arguing the point with the expert is a waste of time. Instead, help your expert by asking a series of questions derived from his or her statement, such as: “What did the support for educational technologies consist of?” Hopefully, the answer will be something like “Classes or seminars teaching the technologies” and if it hasn’t been explained already, then ask something simple like “What are the educational technologies you refer to?” Disregard the expert’s condescending glare, since his “Orthopedic charting software 101” is information the jurors can relate to far more easily than “educational technologies.” It’s also something you can put up visually on a chart, with icons that personalize and make real “Orthopedic charting software.”

As tedious as it may feel, go through your expert’s key points in this manner as you prepare him or her for testimony. You’ll now have a much more effective direct, and have given your expert tools for being convincing on cross, which the expert otherwise would sorely lack.

How to Persuade With Jury Instructions

Jurors polled in focus groups and jury debriefings point out again and again that one of their greatest stumbling blocks at arriving to fair and just decisions is jurors' lack of understanding of the jury instructions and how those instructions should apply to the case. No matter how many times jurists attempt to make jury instructions more accessible to the ordinary person, the language remains obscure and convoluted. Lawyers must help jurors make sense of the language - and most importantly - help the jurors understand how these instructions fit with your case.

For example, take the common instruction regarding "negligence." Jurors often interpret the term as meaning deliberately, intentionally failing to do something one should have done. This is, after all, the most common use of the term in our everyday parlance. Unless clearly instructed that the intent to inflict harm is not a prerequisite of a finding for the plaintiff, the jurors, for example, might absolve a physician's incompetence because "the doctor didn't mean to hurt the patient."

In addition, even when jurors understand the words themselves, they can fail to see how the instruction applies to your case. What is obvious to you is often cryptic to jurors. Throughout the trial, relate testimony and evidence to the key terms of your jury instructions, and remind jurors at closing of how you accomplished this. A "bottom-line"-type chart will easily reinforce the connection.

It is a truism that the lawyer who provides the most clarity and logical explanation of a situation is the lawyer who will prevail. Although this is important throughout the trial, it is critical at during closing arguments. Improper handling of jury instructions can damage an otherwise wonderfully prepared and presented case.

Keep Experts Cool for a Credible Response

Experts can shine or be demolished during cross. An easy way for opposing counsel to destroy otherwise sterling expert testimony is to goad the expert into responding defensively by asking questions in an insulting or outright attacking tone.

Your experts do best if they don't consider the question an attack (regardless of vocal tone), but rather as an opportunity to further clarify and educate. Follow this advice and your expert won't feel tempted to negate or fight everything opposing counsel says. Encourage your expert to simply listen attentively to the content of the question, allowing he or she to answer in ways that may surprise opposing counsel and help your expert maintain a positive footing.

For example, opposing counsel asks, verging on the insulting: "Isn't it true that the validity of the psychological tests you gave is suspect?" Instead of answering defensively: "I personally examined the validity scales of every test," a more constructive answer might be "Certainly, validity is always a primary concern, as are reliability, standardization and other such issues." Using the question to clarify an issue, the expert scores with the jurors and in the process sidetracked opposing counsel (who was undoubtedly expecting the defensive response).

Here is another example of the type of question which tends to put experts on the defensive: "Isn't it true that Drs. X, Y and Z have written that the test you used to come to your conclusions is subjective and unreliable?" Experts who get angry and defensive in response to this line of questioning do not do well with jurors. Suggest that your expert concede what is indefensible, and support that which is: "Indeed, these doctors say that under certain circumstances – unlike the circumstances in this case – this test may be of limited value." Opposing counsel is now obliged to ask your expert about those "certain circumstances," (or if not, you can on re-direct) and your expert can reiterate how this test has value in this particular circumstance.

Keeping expert cool inevitably paves the way to a more credible response.