One of the toughest parts of trial law is the finding, using effectively, and examining, expert witnesses. The first, and biggest problem, is finding one that really is an expert. A string of education, titles, books written and studied, time in the field, experience, and much more are required to qualify one as an expert. The dictionary definition is a person who is permitted to testify at a trial because of special knowledge or proficiency in a particular field that is relevant to the case. But, once that is established, the expert must be able to speak without too much jargon, in order for the trier of fact to understand. And, there are many so called "experts" who have personalities that don't communicate well. I love the commercials that feature an actor who advises that they may not BE a (fill in occupation here), but they played one on TV. There are many examples of experts in fields that are later shown not to have any probative value in a particular type of matter. So, be careful out there. Don't be too reliant on experts. Many lawyers become more knowledgeable in a field than the experts.
Comments