Welcome to YLOAN.COM
yloan.com » strategy » A Strategy for Answering the Common Hypothetical Question during Expert Witness Testimony
Marketing Advertising Branding Careers-Employment Change-Management Customer Service Entrepreneurialism Ethics Marketing-Direct Negotiation Outsourcing PR Presentation Resumes-Cover-Letters Sales Sales-Management Sales-Teleselling Sales-Training Strategic-Planning Team-Building Top7-or-Top10-Tips Workplace-Communication aarkstore corporate advantages development collection global purchasing rapidshare grinding wildfire shipping trading economy wholesale agency florida attorney strategy county consumer bills niche elliptical

A Strategy for Answering the Common Hypothetical Question during Expert Witness Testimony

A Strategy for Answering the Common Hypothetical Question during Expert Witness Testimony


Your work in the case dealt with real facts and real issues that led to your real opinions. An lawyer will occasionally ask how changing one or two relevant facts in the case would change your thinking in the case. His hypothetical question may not even be possible; in that case, state that it is not even a feasible alternative. But the hypothetical question can present a feasible alternative. If you have already considered this alternative, then you probably have an opinion about what the hypothetical changes might mean.

Let me give you an example of how to counter this hypothetical question technique:

Q: Mr. Expert, I'd like you to assume the following fact: no password is required to access Mr. Defendant's computer. I'd also like you to assume the following second fact: the defendant was home sick on the day the computer was used to break into my client's network. Isn't it possible that someone else could have used his computer on that day and that person could be responsible for the electronic break-in?


A: I will make those assumptions, but my own investigation of the defendant's whereabouts and the defendant's computer do not support those facts.

You should differentiate the facts in the case from the suggested facts of any hypothetical question. A goal of the opposing lawyer in offering a hypothetical alternative is to have you enunciate a new opinion that may be different from the one you presented in your report. You have to respond to hypothetical questions but you also have to clarify why any response to a hypothetical differs from your opinions in this case.

If the lawyer is sharp, then the hypothetical changes will be subtle enough to confuse jurors, and possibly even confuse you or make you unsure of your original results and opinions.

If the hypothetical question is complex or confusing, do not hesitate to restate it and ask if your restatement is accurate. Your restatement of course should be simple, reasonable, and if possible, make any absurdities in the hypothetical question apparent to the jury:


Q: If the defendant only lives 25 miles from his office isn't it possible that he had plenty of time to drive home, murder his wife, and return to his office before his normal lunch hour was over?

A: I want to be sure that I know your question. Are you asking me whether I believe that it was possible in one hour for the defendant to leave his desk at Noon on the seventh floor of his office building in downtown Los Angeles, walk to his car, drive through downtown LA traffic, cover 50 miles from his office to his home and back again, park his car, walk back to his office, and be back to his desk by 1pm? Is that your question?

Hypothetical questions can be subtle; subtlety on the attorney's part requires acuity on your part. Take your time in answering. Think through the proposed hypothetical question carefully. Identify what differences exist between the hypothetical and the facts in the case that you have analyzed. Identify the differences between the real and the hypothetical situation. Anticipate where the opposing attorney is going, and why the proposed hypothetical situation should not affect your opinions and opinions.

As long as you can identify and enunciate the differences between the real case and his hypothetical case, then you can simply point those differences out. You can explain why the real facts and the hypothetical proposal do not have the same basis. Be able to describe why the opinions one could draw in the hypothetical situation would naturally be different.
How To Level Up And Earn Gil Fast In FFXIV - Secret FF14 Strategy Guide Final Fantasy 14 Strategy Guide To Level Up Fast And Get Unlimited Gil In FFXIV Pick To Light Best Picking Strategy Deep Linking Forgotten Link Building Strategy Copying Institutional Investors Might Not Be a Good Strategy for You What is the Cacti Strategy that Helped Her Lost 20 Pounds? Starting Your Wealth Strategy with Little or No Capital The Right Strategy In Quail Hunting New Liposuction Strategy Will Go away Clients Tickled with the Outcomes All About The Pity Strategy Farmville strategy to Protect Your real Life Benefits of Link Wheel Strategy Blackjack Strategy Tables: Which One Should You Pick Up?
print
www.yloan.com guest:  register | login | search IP(216.73.216.204) California / Anaheim Processed in 0.017805 second(s), 7 queries , Gzip enabled , discuz 5.5 through PHP 8.3.9 , debug code: 22 , 3751, 547,
A Strategy for Answering the Common Hypothetical Question during Expert Witness Testimony Anaheim