Blog
How Defense Experts Can Defeat Prosecution Experts in Court
How Defense Experts Can Defeat Prosecution Experts in Court
When preparing for a trial as a defense expert, one of the key challenges is figuring out how to counter the prosecution’s experts. Prosecution experts often come across as highly credible given their experience and credentials. So how can defense experts level the playing field?
Understand the Prosecution’s Case
First, you need to thoroughly understand the prosecution’s arguments and where their experts fit into that. Study their reports closely and identify any weak points, logical gaps, or questionable assumptions you can attack. Knowing where the expert testimony supports a linchpin of their case versus just a secondary point will help focus your testimony where it counts most.
Frame Your Qualifications Carefully
Don’t let the prosecution expert’s qualifications immediately awe the jury. Frame yours wisely too. Emphasize hands-on experience over just credentials. If you have specialized knowledge from working in the trenches, play that up. Concrete stories often resonate more than just touting advanced degrees or fellowships, even if those are impressive too.
Anticipate Their Arguments
Put yourself in the prosecution expert’s shoes. If you were them, what testimony would you give and how would you defend it on cross-examination? Develop detailed counterarguments to likely claims, with literature references if possible. The goal is to seem like you’ve already considered everything they might say and have a rebuttal ready. That takes away their momentum.
Demonstrate an Independent Assessment
Show the jury that you didn’t just think up opinions to help the defense, but did an independent and thorough evaluation of the issues. Describe your step-by-step investigative process for assessing the case. Emphasize how your systematic methods and evidence-focused conclusions contrast with any flawed approaches by the prosecution’s expert.
Use Clear Visuals
Visuals that clearly explain key concepts will really drive home your message. For example, a timeline contrasting the prosecution’s version of events vs the defense’s version backed by evidence can be very persuasive. Graphics comparing the questionable assumptions in the opposing expert’s financial models versus your models based on factual data are also impactful.
Connect with the Jury
Don’t get overly technical or use confusing jargon. Relate details in plain language the jury can understand. Use analogies they can connect with from everyday life. Establish some rapport and eye contact with jurors as you’re testifying too – that personal connection makes you seem open rather than defensive.
Anticipate Tricky Questions
On cross-examination, the prosecution will try to rattle you and raise doubts about your assessment. Anticipate the hardest questions they might ask and practice answers that diffuse the implied criticism. Having composed responses ready for intense questioning will prevent you from getting flustered on the stand.
Redirect Criticisms
When attacked on cross-examination, redirect fire back to the flaws in the prosecution expert’s views. Note that differences of opinion between experts are common and don’t necessarily mean someone was incompetent or biased. Tactfully cast doubt on the prosecutor’s approach instead of making it personal.
Embrace Concessions When Reasonable
If there are any concessions you can reasonably make without undermining your overall conclusions, do it. That makes you seem open-minded and not just a mouthpiece for the defense. As long as you maintain the core disputes requiring jury resolution, judicious concessions bolster credibility.