8 Ways To Cross-Examine An Expert Witness

Approach #1: Make the Expert Your Witness

I focus a majority of my questions on the issue we both agree onthe severity of the injuries. I ask
the other sides expert to share with the jury his understanding as to how the injuries have harmed my
client and will continue to do so for the rest of his life. I take my time and do so in detail. With this
particular witness, I completely avoid wasting time trying to cross-examine him about how the injuries
occurred. I do show my jury that the expert wasnt present during the incident and the only
information this expert has was provided directly to him by defense counsel (see #5 below). I use
other witnesses and experts to fill in the blanks and to tell my clients story as to causation.
Approach #2: Attack the Experts Specialty

For example, lets say the defendant in one of my cases calls a UFO expert to the stand. Ill usually
start my cross examination with asking the expert, Should I call you Mister, Doctor or something
else? Depending on his credentials, I may ask if he has some kind of degree in UFO studies and if
so, from what college or university? I ask a series of questions showing the jury that its completely up
to them to determine whether or not this person is really a UFO expert as claimed by the defense
attorney.
Approach #3: Attack the Experts Qualifications

While questioning the defendants expert during his deposition and under oath, I elicited all of his
opinions which were different then the opinions of our nationally recognized expert. Once I was all
done doing this, I then asked the other sides expert who he felt was the most qualified and most well
respected lifeguard expert in the country? As you may have already guessed, he stated the name of
my expert.
Approach #4: Expose the Bias of the Other Sides Expert

In trial I usually make it a point to show the bias of the other sides expert. This normally includes
things like, how many times in the past has the defense attorney hired this particular expert? How
much money has the defense attorney paid the expert? How often is the expert hired each year by
defense attorneys to testify in court? How much time is spent each year by the defendants expert
testifying in trial as opposed to treating patients in an office? What percentage of his income comes
from treating patients as opposed to being a paid expert?
Approach #5: Attack the Other Experts Facts

While testifying from the witness stand, the other sides expert often basis his testimony on facts
provided to him by the defense attorney. Hes never met or interviewed my client or any of the
witnesses in the case. Hes never been to the scene of the incident or met with any of the
investigators for either side.

Because of this, I usually get the expert to admit, during cross-examination, that the opinions he
shared with the jury during his direct examination are only as accurate as the facts and information he
based them upon. That if the facts provided to him were incorrect or incomplete, his expert opinion
may not be accurate. Theres a process I use to do this before a jury and in most cases, the other
sides expert will admit that yes, his testimony is dependent on the accuracy of the facts given to him.
This helps me set things up for approach #6 below.

Approach #6: Modify the Hypothetical

During cross examination, I like to ask the other sides expert to assume that the true facts are not as
defendant states, but in fact are as testified to by my clients. This is easy to do because the other
sides expert has read all the depositions and has been briefed on our version of the case.
I then ask what his or her opinion would be based upon my clients version of the facts? After walking
the expert through a detailed hypothetical, most will agree with our position and even our own expert.
This clarifies for the jury that if they believe our side of the story, its OK to find in our favor.

Approach #7: Impeach with Accepted Authority or Treatise

Before each trial, I usually take the depositions of the other sides expert witnesses. I ask for all their
opinions and all facts they base them on. I also ask about what information and treatises (books,
publications) they base their expert opinions on.

If the other sides expert offers an opinion contrary to a well respected and known treatise, I use that
treatise later during trial to impeach him and to show the jury that the opinion this witnesses has just
testified to is contrary to what other respected experts believe is true and accurate.

Approach #8: Attack the Expert Head On

During litigation and trial, I prefer to use one or more of the above indirect approaches to cross-
examine the defense attorneys expert witness. In almost all instances, this indirect approach works
best and allows me to make my point.

Having said that, every once in awhile you must put on the gloves, step between the ropes and do
your best to land a knockout punch. Because most experts are pretty good at avoiding a direct blow
to the chin, I try to avoid this last approach. Its risky and can easily backfire.