Using an expert`s visual aid during cross-examination can be particularly helpful. Imagine, for example, that an expert writes his main conclusions on a whiteboard to deal with a lawyer who records significant weaknesses, exceptions and warnings on the same whiteboard, as revealed during cross-examination. Since the federal rules of evidence and the corresponding state rules require that an expert be recognized as such before being allowed to give expert advice, organizing your direct questioning is crucial. The presentation of witness statements and expert opinions as the primary form of direct evidence has become common in international arbitration.1 Direct examination may be entirely removed in favour of written evidence, and the examination of witnesses or experts at the oral hearing begins with cross-examination by the other party.2 Note: As a general rule, the key issues do not apply to direct hearings, but there are exceptions, as if it turns out that the witness is hostile. Preparation is crucial. For example, when making statements, ask for studies or research that the expert mentions and read them. Like case law, a scientific study with expert advice may initially appear „on all fours“, but on closer inspection, it may be limited by the design of the study or even arrive at contradictory conclusions. Asking open-ended questions during testimony or pre-trial sessions can also help a lawyer assess an expert`s appearance, speaking style, and other factors that affect credibility and comprehensibility from the jury`s perspective. Once the witness is qualified, direct examination should clearly guide the judge and jury through the expert`s opinions and the basis for them.
If there are obvious ways to attack an expert`s opinion – such as two clearly contradictory methods of analysis or an expert`s long history appearing in similar processes – you should consider addressing them as part of a direct investigation. This way, the jury will be shown that your expert has nothing to hide and can increase credibility if done right. Counsel for the plaintiff or the government begin by presenting evidence by calling witnesses. The questions they ask witnesses are direct examinations. Direct investigation can produce direct and circumstantial evidence. Witnesses may testify to the facts and, in some cases, make statements. They can also be accessed to identify documents, images or other elements that have been introduced as evidence. C. Direct hearing when a witness or expert is not called for cross-examination However, these advantages do not mean that direct examination of an expert is easy or should be taken lightly. During the direct investigation, focus on specific goals: proving your case, creating a compelling narrative, and building trust between the investigator and your expert.
Notwithstanding the presentation of written evidence, the rules of procedure may allow for additional direct evidence in the form of a direct hearing at the hearing. For factual witnesses, this is generally limited to introductory questions and clarifications3, including necessary corrections or updates of written evidence. In contrast, direct expert examination sometimes (and increasingly) takes the form of an oral presentation by the expert, often accompanied by visual aids.4 Direct examination may also be used by a party to present evidence that refutes the last set of written submissions.5 Direct examination techniques are taught in litigation courts. [1] Each direct investigation is integrated into the overall strategy of the case either by a subject and a theory, or, in the case of more advanced strategies, by a line of effort. [2] During direct questioning, a lawyer interviews his own expert. The advantage of direct questioning is that the lawyer (hopefully) met or cooperated with the expert before the trial. During this joint preparation, the lawyer has the opportunity to examine in detail the expert`s opinions, confirm that the expert`s opinions are consistent with his case theory, and help the expert refine his testimonial techniques. During cross-examination, a lawyer usually questions a witness presented by the other party. It can be expected that the expert of an opposing party has given opinions and conclusions that favour that party`s opinion on the case. There is no absolute right to testify orally.7 In cases where the other party has decided not to summon a witness or expert for cross-examination, the question arises as to whether the other party should have the right to summon its own witness or expert for direct examination.
Komentari su zatvoreni.