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.

Answer a Primordial Question for the Jurors: Who?

The names, acronyms and abbreviations so familiar to you, are not to the jurors. You may think that by saying, for example, “Acme Building Supply, which we’ll now call ABS for convenience” is enough to warrant saying “ABS” through the rest of your trial.

But “ABS” has no guts to it, has no uniqueness, no personality, as it were. As laborious as it may be for you to repeat the full appelation, “Acme Building Supply” has a history. It’s associated with events, persons--it has a life. “ABS” is just another bit of alphabet soup.

Be sure to use full names of persons, entities or objects throughout your trial. Avoid the use of pronouns or abbreviated references. Jurors often have trouble keeping track of who did what to whom. They will be totally lost if they must also concentrate on which "he," "she," or "it" you are now referring to. Certainly, well-known abbreviations are acceptable, but generally speaking, abbreviations used too often only serve to confuse jurors. A confused juror is an unsympathetic juror. An unsympathetic juror is the one who could cause you to lose your case.

How to Create a Powerful, Persuasive Chart: KISS

Charts and graphs are among the most persuasive of the array of visuals you have available to you to bring your case home to jurors. As old-school as they may seem, well done charts/graphs can sometimes have more impact than hi-tech options.

Here’s a great example, created by the Prison Policy Organization.  

 

The chart explains itself. You hardly need any words to point out the higher USA incarceration rate. It’s a brilliant visual translation of a concept (“off the chart”).

What else is right with this chart?

- It only expresses one idea; the high USA incarceration rate.

- It is uncluttered; the bars and numbers tell the story, no need for icons.

- It follows the logical order people are used to; low numbers on the bottom to high numbers on the top.

- “Bold” font is used only for the title of the chart and the numbers, so people’s eyes are drawn to what is most relevant. They don’t have to figure out what’s the pertinent information, which happens most often when too many words/numbers are bolded.

- A single color is used for the bars, which highlights the importance of the longest bar. If different colors were used for the different countries, for example, the chart would lose some of its startling clarity.