The adverse expert is typically the most dangerous witness and, at the same time, the most vulnerable. Most dangerous because he testifies cloaked in the mantle of the “unbiased scientist”; thus his testimony – if accepted by the jury – can determine a major issue, maybe the entire case. Yet most vulnerable because, unlike the fact witness who must defend only his first-hand observations, the expert witness must defend his testimony from attacks on a dozen fronts.
As seasoned litigators from all areas of practice have attested (see the thousands of rave evaluations), this presentation elucidates the one-and-only logical method with which to effectively attack the (purported) scientific merits of any adverse expert’s opinion ... no matter the field of (purported) expertise. Never again be the slightest intimidated when cross-examining any expert, even a "Mt. Olympus" one.
Scientific rules & Sir Francis Bacon
Experiential rules & the “you-gotta-trust-me” expert
Attacking the scope of expert’s expertise
Understanding expert’s weighing process
Two incredibly important - and easy to master – techniques
Attacks vs. expert’s claims re X factors
The “certainty scale” & two archetypal arguments
Six sources of assumptions
Seven potential flaws re the expert’s assumption
Attacking expert’s findings derived through expert means
Attacking expert’s findings derived through non-expert means
Expert’s three - and only three - attacks vs. Y factors:
Attacking expert’s double standard re case/career
The perfection line of questioning