3 ms·
> In a jury trial I can imagine that having the jury understand your testimony is probably the most challenging. What I've seen from the sidelines is that what
by yaur 10y ago
> In a jury trial I can imagine that having the jury understand your testimony is probably the most challenging.
What I've seen from the sidelines is that what you want in an expert is someone who make your point, which has more to do with assertiveness than competence, and the credentials to back it up but who can't delve into the topic too deeply because information that the jury doesn't understand is an attack surface that defense attorneys can use to create doubt.
I imagine the rules are a little different in civil litigation where both sides are likely to have experts.
- rhino369 10y agoThat is pretty much how it works on the civil side too. Pick an older professor from the best local college who has given testimony several times before. The open secret is that a lawyer writes all the expert reports and the expert just reviews and makes edits.
- ghaff 10y agoThat has certainly not been my experience. The lawyers have a clear objective for a given expert report and are heavily involved in a lengthy back-and-forth review process. Perhaps sometimes lawyers do the primary drafting but that wasn't what I encountered.
- gregw2 10y ago^this makes a lot of sense
- Digory 10y agoIn civil litigation, my professor used to say you needed three experts: one who actually knows what they're talking about, one that the jury will like, and one to translate between the two.