BehaveNet^® Inc
Behavioral health care information & publishing on the World Wide Web since 1995

Maxims* for Expert Witnesses
from Stanley Brodsky's Testifying in Court - Guidelines and Maxims for the Expert Witness
*Copyright © BehaveNet® and American Psychological Association

Handle loaded and half-truth questions by first admitting the true part in a dependent clause and then strongly denying the untrue part in an independent clause. }{  Respond to implications of being a bought expert by showing awareness of the issue and assertively presenting the foundations of your objectivity. }{  Check and recheck that routine pulls toward affiliation are not diminishing the impartiality of the expert role. }{  Review current literature on the topic about which you will testify. }{  Burdens of proof and degrees of defined certainty are legal concepts.  Do not except, define, or incorporate them into clinical, psychological, or scientific testimony (unless you really know what you are doing). }{  When challenged about insufficient experience, keep track of the true sources of your expertise. }{  Be prepared to present the bases for generalizability of findings and demographic communalities in your testimony. }{  Challenges to professional experience should be met with a knowledge of the literature and affirmations of the worth of your own experience. }{  Do not change a professional opinion on the basis of a cross-examination.  Your opinions should always arise from your data. }{  Questions about children's lying and fantasies should be considered with open acknowledgment of their existence and the ways in which the clinical examination ruled them out as causes of the allegations of abuse. }{  In the controversial area of anatomically detailed dolls and the assessment of child sexual abuse, witnesses should know both the criticisms and supporting data, as well as the requisite professional competencies that accompany their use. }{  Challenges about clients faking bad or faking good should be met with affirmative statements of clinical validity, sensitivity, and vigilance for client dissimulation. }{  Research on client dissimulation should be known and used in clinical work and testimony.  Enough of the research findings are equivocal that caution in evaluations and witness statements are always in order. }{  Criticize your field as requested, but be poised and matter-of-fact and look for opportunities to regain control. }{  Good definitions are necessary but not sufficient bases for answering fundamental questions.  Broader conceptual understanding is needed. }{  Witnesses often feel like aliens in the courtroom: The solution is to be present often and to develop a sense of place identity. }{  Prepare a list of professionally relevant and complete qualifying questions for the attorney to use in the opening of the direct examination. }{  Comfortably agree with accurate challenges to your credentials.  Offered narrative explanations only when they are nondefensive and unforced. }{  Culture does affect the assessment of psychopathology.  Witnesses should be culture educated while still clearly identifying and affirming the conventional foundations of their testimony. }{  Meet with the attorney prior to the direct examination and be involved in preparing the questions. }{  After a disaster during testimony, correct the error as soon as you can.  If you cannot, let it go. }{  Do not be befuddled if you do not know specific DSM cautions.  Do affirm the underlying principles of such cautions in which you believe. }{  Testimony about elder abuse calls for a mixture of specific expertise and visible empathy. }{  In equal opportunity cases, plaintiff witnesses need to focus on social context and defense witnesses on objective comparisons. }{  Cross-examinations about examiner effects call for the witness to explain how training and standardized procedures diminish such effects. }{  When the attorney fishes for ignorance and insecurities, keep your knowledge limits clearly in mind. }{  Neither fraternize nor discuss any element of the case with opposing counsel, other witnesses, clients, or jurors. }{  When testifying about something in which you believe, testify in a manner that shows that you believe in it. }{  The historic hysteric gambit is an indication that nothing else has worked for the attorney.  Respond with poise, either declining to discuss the historical events or dismissing them as obsolete and not applicable. }{  From the earliest stage of legal activity, be certain to have mastered the foundations of your knowledge and role. }{  If you are humorous at all on the witness stand, keep it gentle, good-natured, and infrequent. }{ When minimum professional standards are the issue, do not become a visionary advocate of idyllic and rarely attainable services. }{ When attorneys try to intimidate, respond with controlling answers, proper manners, and clinical reflections. }{ Explicitly relax or engage in productive work just before your court appearance. }{ Effective language usage comes about when the witness personalizes his answers, varies the format, uses narrative well, and produces convincing spoken and transcribed testimony. }{ Gain control of fluency on the witness stand by speaking slowly, stressing syllables, easing into your breath pattern, and varying the loudness of your speech. }{ Never accept the learned treatise as expertise unless you are master of it. }{ Agree to be an expert only when genuine expertise is present. }{ Listen with care to the wording of the attorneys' questions and use this knowledge in the interests of precision and control. }{ When the time is right to disagree with cross-examination questions, do so with strength, clarity, and conviction. }{ Effective witnesses are familiar with expected trial procedures, interpersonal transactions, and the dynamics of testifying. }{ Cross-examining attorneys will use substantive and psychological means to gain control over witnesses.  Witnesses, in turn, need to be free of such control to perform well and feel good about their testimony. }{ Take a breath and explicitly think about questions that require thought. }{ Look at the jury during narrative answers and avoid being captured in eye contact by the cross-examining attorney. }{ Make the courtroom environment familiar and create an opportunity for control by sitting tall and owning personal space. }{ If you do not know primary sources, worry not.  Instead, stay with current knowledge and clinical conclusions. }{ Cross-examination probes for guilt and shame are effective only if you respond with guilt and shame.  Stay on task and nondefensive. }{ Talented professional witnesses can model authoritative expertise for other experts. }{ It is normal for psychotherapists to be reluctant or ambivalent when testifying about their clients.  Testimony should include the strengths of the participant-observer role and the extended opportunities to observe their clients. }{ When the cross-examination question is true but is asked in a pushy and repetitive manner, consider agreeing strongly. }{ Quiet times on the stand can be used to observe carefully, stretch personal limits, and incorporate successes. }{ Know the names and faces of the attorneys, judge, and other participants in the courtroom events. }{ When you truly do not know, say so. }{ Both the teeming masses and esteemed scientific standards cross-examinations should be met with a comfortable affirmation of accepted and meaningful standards of practice. }{ A witness's self-centeredness about the importance of personal testimony can serve as blinders that interfere with clarity, self-assurance, and nondefensiveness. }{ The heated emotionality of termination of parental rights hearings calls for exceptionally well prepared and constructive testimony. }{ Key moments can positively and negatively transform the credibility and acceptance of testimony. }{ Dress for court in clothes that are familiar, comfortable, and professional. }{ Make the last impression a good one. }{ With indifferent attorneys be assertive.  With incompetent attorneys, decline the case or educate them. }{ When lawyers fuss, stay on involved. }{The Ziskin and Faust reviews have an adversarial component and consequently may not meet the respected minority test.  Nevertheless, they have made us more accountable and that can be acknowledged constructively. }{