Friday, March 6, 2009

How to Be an Effective Expert Witness in Science & Technology Law Cases

By far the most important requirement for an expert witness is that you know the par­ticular subject matter in which you are testifying. Then, you must be able to document your expertise through academic credentials, peer reviewed publications, and in-depth actual experience. Finally, you must look and sound as if you know your stuff – you must be convincing, presentable, credible and unshakable. A tall order.


Prevailing in technical law cases often depends almost as much on the quality of experts as on the skill of attorneys. By quality I mean not only technical knowledge and credibility, but also such factors as stage presence, articulation, self-control, creativity, and confidence. These characteristics are especially important in court appearances.


The opposing counsel can challenge your qualifications as an expert witness in order to reduce the impact of your report, deposition and testimony. This challenge can range from probing questions intended discredit your technical option and skills, or to embarrass you or throw you off your stride. Frequently opposing attorneys will ask challenging questions about your university grades and degrees, your professional licenses, your prior employment credibility or your past expert witness work. There is no end to the list of tactics the opposing council will employ to discredit your impact. You can't get impatient, you always must remain calm and courteous and sometimes you just have to have a thick skin.


Recently I sat through a five-hour deposition while five attorneys were trying to discredit my credibility and testimony. The first 90 minutes was a tedious review of my back­ground, as well as irrelevant personal questions. This inquisition was clearly an attempt to show that I was a "hired gun" who could not be trusted. Later, they asked many questions related to the substance of the case in many different ways with the objective of finding contradictions.


You should testify only those cases in which, in good conscience, you can testify honestly and objectively. You should think of yourself as a teacher instead of an advocate for the party that retained you. You must always be honest and represent correctly the technical and circumstantial facts as you know them.


You must prepare yourself for writing a technical report, deposition, and trial. You should read everything thing your client attorney can provide about the case and ask any questions that may occur to you. Then, you should review everything you can find about the subject area involved in the case in order to be knowledgeable about recent developments or relevant reports. With your attorney, you should agree on key issues and the strategy of the case so you can support his/her arguments.

I can think of two cases in which extensive research and preparation made a big difference in the outcome of a case. While looking at the patented technology for a clothes deodorizer in a patent infringement suit, we found prior art in an out­ of-print book that was not picked up in the patent, academic, or trade literature. This facilitated a satisfactory settlement for the defense. Likewise, in a personal injury case, we unexpectedly found in the literature the probable presence of trace quantities of phosgene, a toxic chemical, when a commercial cleaner passed through an arcing electric appliance.

In a deposition, witnesses are questioned under oath by opposing counsel and their testimony is recorded and becomes part of the record of the case. In a trial, witnesses are questioned both by the opposing counsel and the counsel for whom they are appearing. It is most important that your trial testimony is consistent with your deposition testimony. At a trial you are usually appearing before a jury, so you must not only be careful of your spoken words but also your stage presence and believability. Jurors tend to base their opinions on which expert witness makes a better presentation and appearance, especially when the technology involved is complicat­ed.

It is important to tell the truth. Answer questions concisely with a "yes" or "no" when called for unless the question is unclear, in which case you should ask for a clarification. Don't answer until the attorney has completed asking the question. Never appear hostile, arrogant, or unresponsive.


You should dress conservatively. You should stay calm. You should look the cross-examiner in the eye and sit upright with good posture.


By participating in the legal process as a technical expert witness, you are serving a client and a legal system which needs your expertise. The experience can be productive, individually stimulating and professionally satisfying. I recommend it.


What do you think?

  • Have I emphasized the most important points for being a good technical expert witness?
  • What other points would you emphasize?
  • Do you think it is worth the effort to subject yourself to tough attorneys and the legal process to serve as an expert witness?

Dr. Stanley Tocker, the author of this blog spot, is the Executive Vice President of The CECON Group Inc. and a member of CECON's technical staff. Dr. Tocker is a highly qualified and experienced expert witness and was named to the Delaware Environmental Appeals Board by the Governor of Delaware. A graduate of Johns Hopkins, he received his Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from Florida State University. His specialties are organic syn­thesis, polymers, pesticides, formulations, and patent strategy.

4 comments:

  1. What if the technical expert witness is exactly right and gives correct testimony to the court, but fails because he/she is not an excellent speaker, or lacks "stage presence?" It seem unfair that the jury or judge would be biased to favor only those that have excellent presentation skills and looks good. BWS

    ReplyDelete
  2. When it comes to payment for expert witness services: Should I accept payment directly from the opposing side for a deposition? Should I ask for a minimum payment up front before the deposition? If I don't get paid up front in a timely manner, can I refuse to be a witness at a deposition or trial or do I run the risk of a supoena - if I have do appear due to a supoena do I get paid for my services? BEB

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe construction of such projects requires knowledge of engineering and management principles and business procedures, economics, and human behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The judge who will preside at trial is generally not present when the expert witness is deposed. The judge will review the deposition transcript later, and will decide what is and what is not admissible at trial. Unless the deposition is audio or video recorded,the demeanors of the witness and the attorneys are unknown to the judge because only the words are in the transcript.

    From time to time during the deposition, a posed question prompts an argument between the attorneys. After the argument the witness will answer the question posed, and his words will be in the transcript. The attorneys' argument will later be decided by the judge, and if he rules out the question, he also rules out the answer.

    It follows that while the attorneys argue, the witness should try to make the answer to the standing question as succinct as possible - - hopefully, just yes or no. Particularly if the argument was heated, the attorney who posed the question is likely to blurt out "Yes, what?" If the witness then says "Yes is the answer to the question you posed before you started shouting," he calls the judge's attention to the attorney's demeanor.

    Perhaps this elevates the witness in the judge's eyes or diminishes the attorney. And perhaps it "rattles" the questioning attorney enough to reduce his concentration on his task. Sometimes neither is worth much. But it CAN'T be harmful. Further, "putting one over" on the questioning attorney improves the frame of mind and the demeanor of the deponent.

    Having been on both sides of the table in this sort of interaction, I must say that asking the questions is much easier than answering them. When the deponent stumbles on an answer, the skillful questioner gets as far from its focus as possibe, diminishing the recovery opportunity. When the attorney stumbles on the question, he may approach it again later, risking an "asked and answered" objection.

    But even if it makes no difference to the outcome, rattling the opposing attorney is a worthwhile endeavor because its just plain FUN.

    ReplyDelete