Expert Witness Read Online Free
been involved â it would be unethical. Now I come to think about it, I donât think I even know anyone whoâs been on a jury.
The inability to show personality is a conundrum, especially for an expert witness like me. Iâm told Iâm good at my job (Iâm a modest sort) and I get enthusiastic about it and I like to talk about it in a non-specific manner (no names are mentioned). Court is not the place to talk about your knowledge, except in a very controlled manner. Number one rule for counsel: never ask a question to which you donât know the answer. This is supposed to apply when examining or cross-examining but it also seems to extend into the time before the hearing or trial. Iâve lost count of the number of times I tried to tell defence counsel before a trial that my evidence wasnât going to be helpful to their client and then when I said some thing unhelpful in my oral evidence they got all lemon-sucky-faced about it and refused to talk to me afterwards. You canât tell some people, as my mother would say.
The upshot of this is that I love my job and I love giving presentations, talks, seminars, workshops, training courses â you name it. I also accept that giving evidence in court or in front of a tribunal is a critical part of the job and, although I wonât go as far as to say I enjoy it, itâs some thing I hope I do well. I am experienced in the ways of the court and I know when not to speak beyond what Iâve said and I understand the limits of what I need to say. Itâs a skill all good expert witnesses nurture and hone and all good barristers and solicitors recognise when they see it in the witness box.
For example, thereâs no need to waffle on about how tandem mass spectrometry works unless itâs directly relevant to the issue at hand. Otherwise itâs boring for everyone in the court and, as a witness, you lose your audienceâs attention. If youâve waffled on about your beloved tandem mass spectrometry and everyoneâs half asleep and counting down the seconds until break time, no one will be sufficiently focused to notice when you say some thing interesting or of relevance, such as: Ninety-five per cent or more of English bank notes have traces of cocaine on them.
It is also incredibly difficult not to speak to fill a silence; itâs a well-used interview tactic. Itâs a challenge to finish what you want to say and then stop, especially if youâre being cross-examined and counsel wants you just to fill the silence with some thing that might be of assistance to their case. Just say what you have to say. Stop talking. Silence. Wait. Someone will do some thing but it doesnât have to be you.
Here is an extract from a court transcript which demonstrates when not to get too over inflated and relaxed when giving evidence as an expert witness. The expert is being cross-examined by the QC for the other side (a QC is aQueenâs Counsel, a level of title awarded to only some senior barristers):
QC: You wouldnât take the silencer off before you shot yourself, would you?
Expert: I probably wouldnât shoot myself.
Laughter within court including, alarmingly, from the expert witness himself. At this point I knew it was going to go badly for the expert but oh so well for the barrister.
QC: I would hope you wouldnât but the tragedy is ⦠that a lot of people who are seriously depressed do ⦠commit suicide, thatâs the tragedy, isnât it?
Expert: Thatâs correct.
QC: Itâs not a laughing matter, is it?
Expert: No, it is not.
I was right. Expert: nil, QC: 1. The expert lost credibility as a result of that short exchange, because everyone in the court went through approximately the same mental thought processs:
Ha ha, thatâs funny. Oh, no itâs not. That barrister blokeâs got a point. Itâs not really funny. Feel a bit embarrassed. Hope no oneâs looking at
The inability to show personality is a conundrum, especially for an expert witness like me. Iâm told Iâm good at my job (Iâm a modest sort) and I get enthusiastic about it and I like to talk about it in a non-specific manner (no names are mentioned). Court is not the place to talk about your knowledge, except in a very controlled manner. Number one rule for counsel: never ask a question to which you donât know the answer. This is supposed to apply when examining or cross-examining but it also seems to extend into the time before the hearing or trial. Iâve lost count of the number of times I tried to tell defence counsel before a trial that my evidence wasnât going to be helpful to their client and then when I said some thing unhelpful in my oral evidence they got all lemon-sucky-faced about it and refused to talk to me afterwards. You canât tell some people, as my mother would say.
The upshot of this is that I love my job and I love giving presentations, talks, seminars, workshops, training courses â you name it. I also accept that giving evidence in court or in front of a tribunal is a critical part of the job and, although I wonât go as far as to say I enjoy it, itâs some thing I hope I do well. I am experienced in the ways of the court and I know when not to speak beyond what Iâve said and I understand the limits of what I need to say. Itâs a skill all good expert witnesses nurture and hone and all good barristers and solicitors recognise when they see it in the witness box.
For example, thereâs no need to waffle on about how tandem mass spectrometry works unless itâs directly relevant to the issue at hand. Otherwise itâs boring for everyone in the court and, as a witness, you lose your audienceâs attention. If youâve waffled on about your beloved tandem mass spectrometry and everyoneâs half asleep and counting down the seconds until break time, no one will be sufficiently focused to notice when you say some thing interesting or of relevance, such as: Ninety-five per cent or more of English bank notes have traces of cocaine on them.
It is also incredibly difficult not to speak to fill a silence; itâs a well-used interview tactic. Itâs a challenge to finish what you want to say and then stop, especially if youâre being cross-examined and counsel wants you just to fill the silence with some thing that might be of assistance to their case. Just say what you have to say. Stop talking. Silence. Wait. Someone will do some thing but it doesnât have to be you.
Here is an extract from a court transcript which demonstrates when not to get too over inflated and relaxed when giving evidence as an expert witness. The expert is being cross-examined by the QC for the other side (a QC is aQueenâs Counsel, a level of title awarded to only some senior barristers):
QC: You wouldnât take the silencer off before you shot yourself, would you?
Expert: I probably wouldnât shoot myself.
Laughter within court including, alarmingly, from the expert witness himself. At this point I knew it was going to go badly for the expert but oh so well for the barrister.
QC: I would hope you wouldnât but the tragedy is ⦠that a lot of people who are seriously depressed do ⦠commit suicide, thatâs the tragedy, isnât it?
Expert: Thatâs correct.
QC: Itâs not a laughing matter, is it?
Expert: No, it is not.
I was right. Expert: nil, QC: 1. The expert lost credibility as a result of that short exchange, because everyone in the court went through approximately the same mental thought processs:
Ha ha, thatâs funny. Oh, no itâs not. That barrister blokeâs got a point. Itâs not really funny. Feel a bit embarrassed. Hope no oneâs looking at
Readers choose
Tanya R. Taylor
Leanda de Lisle
Douglas Adams
E.A. Whitehead
Diane Collier
Cindy Gerard
Linda Howard
Peter Howe
Shirlee McCoy
Carina Bartsch