The Cross-Examiner's Tactics: What the Expert Witness Should Know
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In my book, Financial Litigation: Quantifying Business Damages and Values,1 I provide a comprehensive list of suggestions (do’s and don’ts) for the business valuator when giving expert testimony in the witness box, both in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination. This lengthy “checklist” was developed from both personal experience and working with eminent Canadian and American trial lawyers. I believe it may be of interest to aspiring (and even experienced) expert witnesses to obtain a view from “behind the scenes” and to see what rules and maxims have been established for the trial attorneys themselves. Just as we expert witnesses have our own “do’s and don’ts” checklist, so does the litigation lawyer cross-examining you. Crossexamination is such an important part of the trial process that entire books have been devoted to the subject. In this article, I have taken material from the writings of two Canadian and two American legal authorities: Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice John Sopinka (when he was a practicing trial lawyer) in The Trial of An Action and Ontario District Court Judge Roger Salhany in Cross-Examination: The Art of The Advocate . The American authors are Peter Brown in The Art of Questioning and the nineteenth-century trial lawyer, Francis Wellman, in his classic, The Art of Cross-Examination. My comments consist of a potpourri of the rules, or maxims, given by these renowned trial lawyers to their fellow attorneys. I hope they will provide insight as to what goes on in the mind of the cross-examiner and where he or she is “coming from,” and why. Needless to say, these rules are by no means exhaustive. Those specifically relating to criminal trials are not referred to, unless they are common to civil and commercial matters. Whenever expert evidence is involved, I have included the relevant maxims. Sopinka, in his book The Trial of An Action, gives several pages of advice (as an attorney) to trial lawyers in preparing a witness for cross-examination, and suggested: “In order to further neutralize the terror generated by the witness box the witness should be given a preview of the cross-examination. When the witness is a main witness and will be subjected to a searching cross-examination, it is often productive to plan the examination which is expected from opponent’s counsel and subject the witness to it ... . “Apart from being given a preview of the examination there are a number of ‘good pieces of advice’ about behavior from which a witness can profit ... . Don’t fence with the cross-examiner. Don’t lose your composure. ... no matter how much you dislike the cross-examiner treat him with respect. All of this will help to create a favorable impression on the tribunal.” Those of us who have already testified as a valuation expert appreciate that the foregoing instructions are those typically suggested by counsel preparing the expert for cross-examination. Sopinka notes that a witness’ evidence can be contradicted or impeached by (a) previous inconsistent statements, (b) other evidence, (c) contradiction in the witness’ own evidence or inherent improbabilities therein, or (d) attacking his or her memory, power of observation and credibility. As regards the expert (as opposed to the fact-witness), he makes the following suggestions to fellow counsel: • To cross-examine effectively, it is necessary to be schooled by an equally competent expert. • The object is to flaw him/her so that your expert is preferred. • The easiest way of discrediting the opinion is to refute a basic assumed or found fact, which may be done in cross-examination or by other evidence. • If a basic assumed fact cannot be refuted, attack the theory of the expert [presumably relying upon counsel’s own expert].
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».