Amen.
I my case, I was the lawyer... and the expert never won!
(But then it was not between me or him... I was working
for a client, and ... oddly enough... I THOUGHT we were
there to find the TRUTH... not just prove a case.)
Many lawyers make the HUGE MISTAKE of thinking it is
about THEM for some reason... and I have many times
witnessed where the expert seems to be on trial, and
the lawyer is out to prove his limited knowledge.
But a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing and juries
much prefer humility and cooperation and courtesy. Te
fact is, I am just there to tell a story. And it is not MY
story, either.
So I applaud you guys because I have been there and watched
what you are referring to - and I won my cases because we
were on the same page as the experts. Just trying to tell
a story, and let the jury decide what really happened, and
who was at fault. An expert is only someone who has such
specialized knowledge sufficient to allow him to render an
opinion - and not be bound to just telling the facts. Otherwise,
as the one feller said, it is "Just the facts, ma'am" for everyone.
So, yes, I have watched too many sparring matches between
lawyer and witness, which does the client a huge mis-service,
actually, as it appears to the jury like a desperate attempt
to tell fiction.
====================== Richards - K8JHR ================
On 2/19/2010 7:17 AM, Carter wrote:
>> The real fun came from the cases where some lawyer thought he could
>> show me up on cross-examination. Not once did the lawyer win.
>
> Been there, done that!
>
> I was the forensic expert for a large telcom and spent my share of time
> in court...and no, not once did the opposing lawyer win. They all mostly
> seem to have forgotten the lawyer's Golden Rule of never asking a
> question to which they don't know the answer. :-)
>
===================================================================
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|