subject: My Favorite ‘Words to the Wise' for Wonderful Witness Relations with Jurors [print this page] My Favorite Words to the Wise' for Wonderful Witness Relations with Jurors
You will be especially pleased when you can see that jurors agree with what you are saying. Some basics:
* Keep your answers short. Attorneys learn to be brief so as not to lose the jurors. That is good advice for you as an expert witness for the same reason.
* Be precise in your responses. "Yes" Or "No" is better than "Probably." Fifty-three miles an hour is better than "about the speed limit." Precise answers sound knowledgeable while imprecise answers sound uncertain.
* Use everyday English, not technical jargon or big words. Attorneys do not use legalese when asking you questions, once again to avoid losing the jurors. You should do the same; lose the jargon, not the jurors.
* Be a teacher. Take a moment to define or explain any technical words you have to use. Just don't come across as arrogant while you are doing it. Use simple English.
* Be crystal clear about each opinion. Each one of your opinions is like the main course at a fancy restaurant. A waiter tells you the name of the course, then describes what ingredients were used and how the dish was prepared. The jurors want to know your opinion, but they also want to know the ingredients (the facts and data) you used, and then hear about the careful, methodical, and logical way in which you prepared that dish' for them.
* Rephrase an answer if the jurors appear confused. Also rephrase an answer if your lawyer, during direct examination, seems to repeat a question. It may be because he believes your answer was confusing or because your answer did not include important facts that he wanted to hear from you. A repeated question by your retaining lawyer is an indication that your preceding answer was not enough. Elaborate or clarify.
Maintaining a calm composure is an excellent way to stay centered and focused. It helps to heighten your credibility during direct examination, and to protect that same credibility during cross examination. Losing your composure on the stand, under any manner of attack from the opposing counsel, is unprofessional, and plays directly into opposing counsel's hands.
In a trial setting, opposing counsel hopes that the jurors will recoil from you in one way or another, maybe based on how you look or sound or due to questions they might have about your credibility. One sure way to make them doubt you is by losing your composure, for any reason.
Attempting to drive a wedge between you and the jurors is something the cross examining attorney could very well attempt. If he can upset, anger, or visibly distress you, you are a giant step closer to losing control. If you become angry, you are more likely to make mistakes, either outright ones or simply verbal opportunities for additional attacks by the opposing counsel that will successfully undermine your testimony. If you become defensive, the jurors will wonder how confident you really are of what you have to say. Worse, the opposing attorney may successfully make you wonder, at this last minute, whether you might have been wrong in one of your assumptions, procedures, or opinions.
The trial is not the time for uncertainty. New evidence is rarely introduced at trial time, so you likely know all you need to know before you enter the witness box. If something completely new is introduced, you will sound flexible and reasonable if you are willing to consider it, but you should say that you would have to make a full review of the new information before concluding whether it would justify changing your opinion.
If you are sure of your opinions, and confident in your work, you should be able to present those opinions straightforwardly and without uncertainty. In the face of challenges from the opposing attorney, you should be able to maintain that certainty and confidence in what you say.
Always act calmly on the witness stand. Always seem to be in control. Always answer clearly and thoughtfully.
When I say, "be truthful," it should be obvious that I mean at least "speak the truth." But I mean something even more than that: I am also saying: "Don't stretch the truth." You may believe strongly in the client and in your side of the case, but remember that you are not supposed to be biased. You are not supposed to be an advocate for your side. You are supposed to be an expert who presents evidence beneficial to that side, but in an objective manner. You risk being disqualified, or impeached, by the judge if it becomes obvious that you are stretching the truth and drawing conclusions that go beyond an unbiased, expert appraisal of the evidence.
