Running Head: JURY EXPERTS DISCUSSION RESPONSE

JURY EXPERTS DISCUSSION RESPONSE

Name of the Student

Instructor

Course

Date
JURY EXPERTS DISCUSSION RESPONSE 2

I concur with the opinion that a background check is the main task involving initial direct

examination. It is mainly an exploration of academic, training, and experience prowess before

the grant of witnessing role. Just like any other job requirement, certification is part of the

examination for the jury to grow confidence in the expert. I acknowledge how you have sub

sectioned the initial examination segment from the lowest skill level to the highest. I also agree

that the questioning constitutes the work environment an individual is enlisted. The primary

purpose of such interrogations is to ascertain the level of individual conduct with forensic tasks,

the time frame involved, and the main achievements. I tend to disagree that an examiner should

partially explore academic qualifications. Although experience is the main issue of proof, prior

training should be consolidated as a vital element of measuring the individual's skills. However,

you failed to state the significance of this level of examination. Apart from proving skills, it is an

opportunity for the individual to portray prowess in the forensic investigation while earning the

jury's confidence.

I agree the Voir Dire aims at discrediting the expert’s adequacy in carrying out an investigation.

The only reason the counsel will probe an expert is to nullify their findings and expose their

unfitness in handling the case. I tend to agree the level includes random questioning from career

development, practice, and profession. According to Witness Cross-Examination (2015), the

counsel usually has a perfect understanding of an individual's background information with a

clear correspondence of any loopholes that call for a further inquest. Definitively, any opposing

counsel will question the experience and training time of an expert. Most likely, the certification

might be discredited, especially if the warranty is about to expire. I strongly feel that the

response capabilities of the expert are the only evading strategy against the attacks. Brief, well-

thought responses and prior preparation before sessions enhance chances of censuring the
JURY EXPERTS DISCUSSION RESPONSE 3

counsel's claims. Most of the arguments during the session are mere speculation whose backing

is inadequate.

Lastly, an expert needs to stick in their professional capacity to avoid contradicting the

testimony. Any forensic expert should understand that the testimonial session is the most crucial

of all. It is an opportunity for the expert to demonstrate their skills by exploring the facts relating

to the case (Jones & Varner, 2012). The opposing counsel usually escalates any contradicting

information offered during testimony. It thus calls for a solemn review of the evidence before the

presentation. The most appropriate tactic is to propose probable questions that may be aired by

the counsel. Such measures ensure adequate preparation to enhance the knowledgeability of the

case. However, honesty, confidence, and prior preparation are vital attributes in ensuring the

success of any testimony.

Generally, I perfectly accord almost all arguments regarding different levels of examination that

an expert undergoes. I consent to the three levels of examination, including career, practice, and

profession, as the critical areas that examiners, including the opposing counsel, concentrate. A

clear understanding of the topic is manifested in how efficiently you explored the assignment's

different levels. However, I note a weak exploration of the importance of an expert's testimony.

The central importance is to allow the jury to pass a just sentence. You failed to include this

crucial assertion in your response since it is the primary purpose of including experts in forensic

cases.

References

Jones, F. C., & Varner, C. D. (2012). Direct Examination: Making The Facts Understandable.

Retrieved from http://www.kslaw.com/library/pdf/MakingtheFactsUnderstandable.pdf

JURY EXPERTS DISCUSSION RESPONSE 4

Direct and Cross-Examination of Witnesses. (2015, April 09). Retrieved from

http://research.lawyers.com/direct-and-cross-examination-of-witnesses.html