Art of Advocacy Series: Cross Examination of Non-Medical Experts

Front Cover
LexisNexis, Aug 3, 2016 - Law - 1828 pages
0 Reviews
Learn how to undermine an expert's testimony by showing bias, lack of qualification, inconsistency with prior statements, etc., how to use a witness to prove your case and how to control a hostile witness.

Cross examinations are contributed by Richard Caulfield, Ronald Krist, Paul Luvera, Robert Ely, Richard Sommer, Scott Baldwin, Fred Peters, Bruce Walkup, Frank Raichle, Stanley Preiser, Adrian Schoone, Joseph L. Young and Leonard Decof.


What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.


The Process
8 Highlight the Speculative Nature of the Experts Testimony
9 Use Admissions to Narrow Issues for the Jury and Further Your Case
10 Wear the Expert DownDont Take No for an Answer
11 Shift Your Attack Frequently to Different Areas to Unsettle the Witness
12 Uncover the All Purpose Expert for Hire
13 Point Out the Obvious Prejudice of the Witness
10 Demonstrate That the Expert Cannot Work Backwards Because His Numbers Are
11 Expert Failed to Obtain and Consider Plaintiffs Income Tax Returns
12 Use of the Expert to Impeach Plaintiffs Failure to File Income Tax Returns
13 Dont Permit Uncooperative Witness to Dodge Questions Bring It to Jury and Judges Attention
14 Expose Experts Heavy Reliance upon Plaintiffs Counsel for Information
15 Expose the Experts Difficulty in Making Annual Projections of Plaintiffs Income
Foundation Attack 28 00 Gaps in the Foundation 1 How Gaps Occur PreTrial 2 How Gaps Occur During Trial 3 Discovery 4 No Foundation Given ...

Plaintiffs Engineering Expert in Negligent Construction of Staircase Case 1 Facts and Procedural History
2 Establish Bias in Favor of the Plaintiff
3 Get Concessions Regarding Conversations with Retaining Counsel 4 Impeach the Witness by Absence of Details in Report
5 Get Admissions That There Is No Code Violation to Narrow Issues 6 Impeach Based on Experts Lack of Personal Knowledge of the Facts
7 Run Witness Through Applicable Codes as a Foundation for Subsequent Impeachment
8 Impeach Based on Lack of Finding of Causation 9 Lack of Factual Predicate for Experts Opinion
10 Impeach with Alternative Theories of Causation 11 Conversations with the Plaintiffs Attorney
12 Show That the Expert Failed to Document Conversations with Counsel
13 Impeach by Spoliation of Documents andor Missing Documents
14 Impeach by Failure to Record Important Information 15 Conversations with Plaintiffs Counsel Before Expert Writes Report
16 Impeach with Inconsistencies in Prior Responses and Testimony
17 Impeach with Fees and Payments to the Expert
18 Experts Lack of Recollection of Ordinary Facts
19 Prior Contact with the Plaintiffs Attorney and Law Firm
20 Show Percentage of Time Expert Spends TestifyingProfessional
Overview of the Law of CrossExamination of NonMedical
03 CrossExamination of the Plaintiff
Bias or Interest
The Expert Who Expresses the Same Opinion in Every Case
The Expert Who Spends All of His Time Consulting and Primarily
CHAPTER 3A CrossExamination of a Biomechanical Engineer
Lack of Appropriate Education or Knowledge
Collateral Attack on Meteorologist ExpertQuestioning
Authored by the Witness
Collateral Attack On An Economic Expert
Bias and Credibility
CHAPTER 8B CrossExamination of a Tobacco Companys Former Chemist
Impeachment by Inconsistent Statements
Impeachment of Accident Reconstruction Expert With
Impeachment of Accident Reconstruction Expert With
or 40
Impeachment of Biomechanical Engineer With Inconsistent
Impeachment of Ph D in Anatomy Using Deposition Testimony
Impeachment of InHouse Expert With Interrogatories and With
Cross Examination of Research and Development Scientist
Cross Examination of Defendants Expert in Automotive Product
Cross Examination of Plaintiffs Expert in Automotive Products
Impeachment of Safety Test Engineer in Automobile Products
Use of Treatise to ImpeachWitness Refuses to Recognize
Impeachment of InHouse Defense Engineer in Automobile
Impeachment of Farm Machinery Expert With Safety Codes
Impeachment of InHouse Engineer Using Prior Inconsistent
Impeachment of Plaintiffs Mechanical Engineer in Automobile
Impeachment of Defendants BiostatisticianEpidemiologist
Impeachment of Economist for Failure to Consider Actual
16 Show That Experts Projections Are Unrealistic Based on Facts 17 Expert Did Not Factor into Projections the Fact That Plaintiff Had Cancer 18 Ex...
2 Economist Assumes the Plaintiff Will Remain in Workforce FullTime Until Age 65
3 Expert Did Not Consider the Actual Time Plaintiff Worked
4 Establish Factors That Could Render Projections Inaccurate
5 Witness Is Evasive and Combative
6 Attack the Facts upon Which the Witness Bases His Opinion
7 Point Out the Experts Lack of Background Information on the Plaintiff
8 The Expert Failed to Obtain the Plaintiffs Prior Earnings History
9 Effective Use of Hypothetical Question Based upon Facts of This Case
15 Malfunction Concealed from Witnesses
Foundation Attack of Vocational Rehabilitation Expert
CHAPTER 29A Foundation Attack of Metallurgy Expert in Auto Accident Case
CrossExamination of InHouse Quality Control Manager
Cross Examination of a Chemical Waste Expert in a Toxic
Cross Examination of Defendants Expert Mountain Climber
Cross Examination of Economist to Demonstrate Effect
Cross Examination of Defendants Economist as to Expected
Adverse Examination of Defendants Salesman to Establish
Adverse Cross Examination of Consultant Engineer Former
B Cross Examination
Cross Examination of a Nonmedical Expert Witness in a
Cross Examination of a Nonmedical Expert on the Relevance
Cross Examination of Biomechanical Engineer re Substandard
CrossExamination of Plaintiffs Professional Economist
Plaintiff Following Termination
Cross Examination of Electrical Expert in Personal Injury Case
Cross Examination of the Plaintiffs Expert Economist
Cross Examination of Plaintiffs EngineerAccident
Cross Examination of Plaintiffs Vocational Economic Analyst
Cross Examination of Farm Equipment Expert in a Products
CHAPTER 49A CrossExamination of Plaintiffs Traffic Engineer Expert
CHAPTER 49B CrossExamination of Defendants Expert Injury
Tests and Experiments
16 Accident Could Not Have Happened as Described by Plaintiff 17 Vehicle Had to Have Been Moving or Not Properly Loaded 18 Basis for Opinio...
3 Use of Expert Drivers to Measure Response 50 03 Impeachment of Independent Expert by His Obvious Evasiveness Tests Performed but Not Intr...
Models of Cross Examination
BiasAdvertises in Technical Witness Service
Employment With Companies Similar to Defendant
Consultation With Party on Prior Matters A 10 Receipt of Grant From Industry Associated With Party
Never Testified for a Plaintiff A 12 Usually Testifies for Plaintiffs A 13 Always Goes One Way on an Issue A 14 FullTime Professional Expert
Expert Is A Professional Witness
Formerly Worked for a Party A 17 Expert Who Has Testified in Cases Involving Identical Facts
Experts Background
Paid Consultant for Defendants A 20 Financial Interest as Paid Expert
Prior Testimony for the Defendant
Prior Testimony Involving Defendants Product
Income From Defense Consulting Business A 24 Witness Has Made Derogatory Remarks About the Plaintiffs
Frequent Consultations for the Defendant
Family Owned Business
Prior Experience as a Witness
Competency Scope
Competency of a Safety Expert
The Theoretical vs The Practical
Police Officer Trying to Testify as an Accident Reconstruction Expert
Area of Expertise Limited B 05 No Experience With the Particular Instrumentality Involved in the Case
SelfOrdained Expert
Never Have Worked With the Material Being Identified B 08 Expert Not Familiar With Materials Used
Lack of Prior Examination
Witness Not a Practicing Registered Engineer B 11 Lack of TrainingBiomechanical Engineer
Expert Lacks Relevant Practical Experience
Eliminating Testimony on Design
Tests and Experiments

Common terms and phrases

Bibliographic information