are beyond reproach. Ultimately, if the expert is shown to have relied on facts that are not true, their opinions may no longer be credible or reliable. Some expert testimony can be meticulous, highly technical and, to some jurors, downright boring. It is crucial to pick the three or four best cross-examination points and stick to them. An overly long and confusing cross-examination runs the risk of boring the judge and the jury and, perhaps most critically, could end up hiding the most important points of cross-examination. Remember, juries are like an empty cup being filled with too much extra water. Once the cup runneth over, the jurors will be unlikely to remember and hold excess information. One way to build upon the cross-examiner’s theory is using cross-examination by a collateral attack, focusing less on the case at hand, and more on the expert and their potential biases. The experts’ financial bias is a common ground for a collateral attack. The expert is, after all, providing their opinion on behalf of a party for money. This line of questioning is to show the expert is not an objective expert simply teaching the jury the subject matter as if they are a professor in a classroom, but rather a hired gun for opposing counsel to mislead the jury. There is debate whether juries really care about this type of information as much as we may think they do, and they even may conclude that if the expert gets paid a surprisingly high amount to testify, they must really be a very qualified expert! You’ll have to make an independent judgment call in how you approach each cross-examination. Do Your Own Research If the expert has a website or has published material in the past, go get it and read it. Look for YouTube videos or damaging material they’ve written in the past or contradictory testimony in previous transcripts. You will often be amazed at what information you can find on the expert’s own website or from a deep-dive Google search. One recent defense expert stated she was a “nationally renowned” medical expert despite only being out of medical school for three years. Your goal is to create a firm impression: here is a biased, suspect or untrustworthy witness. In short, the ideal expert has extensive knowledge enabling them to interpret the issue at hand, impressive credentials and an impeccable ethical reputation. The witness must also be able to explain complex concepts clearly, and should be personable and engaging — someone a jury wants to listen to. It is not good enough to have just any “expert,” because you can be certain opposing counsel will have experts of their own. In complex personal injury cases, the side with the most credible expert medical witnesses, and the most prepared and focused cross-examination usually wins the day. The Expert Witness in Your Next Trial continued from p. 23 24 Trial Lawyer | Winter 2025
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=