P. 1
Expert Witness

Expert Witness

|Views: 148|Likes:
Published by Aditi Singh

More info:

Published by: Aditi Singh on May 18, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






  • Preface to the Second Edition
  • Introduction: WhatMakes an Expert?
  • The Adversarial Context
  • The Prime Question
  • Confidentiality Warnings
  • The Database
  • The Socratic Method
  • Malingering and Self-Serving Motivation
  • Reasonable Medical Certainty
  • The Hired Gun Problem
  • Treater Versus Expert
  • The Humility Factor
  • References
  • Suggested Readings
  • The Expert’s Ethical Universe
  • The Nonconfidentiality Warning
  • Turndown Rates
  • Ethics and the Oath
  • Problems of Loyalty and Identification
  • Nonsexual Seduction and Other Forms of Bias
  • The Ultimate Ethical Test
  • First Principles
  • Initial Negotiations With the Retaining Attorney
  • The Stage of Case Review
  • Psychiatric Malpractice Cases
  • Criminal Responsibility Cases
  • Evaluation of Emotional Injuries
  • High-Profile Cases
  • Spotting the Other Side’s “Hired Gun”
  • Discovery and Depositions
  • Interrogatories
  • Depositions
  • The Video Deposition
  • After the Deposition
  • The Expert in Trial
  • Trial Preparation
  • The Daubert Challenge
  • Practical Matters
  • Testimony
  • Crises
  • The End of the Affair
  • Some Pointers on Expert Witness Practice
  • Scheduling Issues
  • Priorities
  • Trial Time Considerations
  • Your So-Called Life
  • Writing to and for the Legal System
  • The Forensic Report
  • General Remarks
  • The Experience Factor
  • The Criminal Report: An Example
  • Developing and Marketing a ForensicPractice
  • The Key Approach
  • The Delicate Balance
  • Strategies
  • What About Web Sites?
  • Additional Pointers
  • Suggested Attendance
  • Some General Recommendations
  • Secrets of Packing
  • Secrets of Flying
  • Secrets of Staying
  • Secrets of Eating
  • Secrets of Sleeping
  • What to Take to Court
  • Epilogue
  • Glossary
  • Index

It is every expert’s nightmare that several commitments will converge on the
same tiny allocation of time. In accordance with Murphy’s Law, you will go



for months without any forensic activity whatsoever, but during the very
week that you have scheduled four weddings and a funeral, two trials in dif-
ferent states will be called simultaneously, with a deposition for a third case.
This type of schedule is close to reality.
Such a conjunction of scheduling conflicts requires a great deal of diplo-
macy, negotiation, and telephone calls to resolve them. As a rule of thumb,
the hierarchy of urgency and therefore attempted postponement (or at worst,
cancellation) is as follows.
Trials take first priority. Large numbers of people are involved, court
dockets are crowded and leave little flexibility, and serious matters hang in
the balance. You may have a little room to maneuver in terms of the order in
which you testify. An attorney who planned to have you “bat cleanup” (i.e.,
testify last in order to summarize) may be willing to move you earlier in the
case and somewhat restructure your direct examination to compensate for
this maneuver. In extreme circumstances, the other side may be willing to
have your testimony inserted into their side of the case, with suitable prep-
aration of the jury.

The tension here is that some courts, attorneys, and other-side attorneys
are reasonable, flexible, and accommodating; others are not. You must do the
best you can with what you’ve got. Because your attorney has the most in-
terest in your presence, he or she will be exerting the greatest efforts to make
it all work out, but things happen. Travel glitches (discussed in Chapter 10,
“The Expert on the Road,” in this volume), of course, add another layer of

The second priority is depositions, which also require several people to
synchronize their schedules, although obviously fewer persons and a shorter
time frame are involved than are for trial. If a trial and a deposition are sched-
uled for the same time, the trial should take precedence.
The last two priorities are interview and report. Because your reports
can be done at any time of the day or night, theoretically, aforensic inter-
view, requiring two parties to match schedules, comes before a report.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->