Expert witnesses are typically brought onto a case to provide their educated opinion. They interpret a particular set of information or circumstances to be meaningful to the judge and/or jury, and give the scenario more context through their expert lens. This can be especially helpful in theoretical situations, when we don’t know exactly what happened and must piece together a hypothesis based on analysis of what we, and our team of experts, do know.
But what happens when the facts seem cut and dry? What if science seems to leave no room for interpretation? Experts can explain facts, certainly, but certain information simply is what it is, no debate required. Right?
Not so. I came across this article the other day, which is a great example of how even seemingly irrefutable evidence can be used for different means in the hands of different experts (as well as the stunning bureaucracy of our legal system – but that’s a post for another day.) In a nutshell, prosecutors claim that DNA evidence supports that Lonnie Franklin Jr. is a serial killer known as the “Grim Sleeper.” The defense claims that DNA evidence casts “reasonable doubt” on Franklin’s guilt. There are other factors at play, of course, but two separate expert witnesses, representing opposite council, are essentially saying opposite things about something that would logically seem to be set in stone.
So, how will the jury decide whose version of the truth is valid? It often comes down to the credibility of the witnesses. Who seems more trustworthy, more knowledgeable, more prepared? Whose background is better suited to this particular analysis? Who is more articulate, convincing, presentable? Who has more experience? Which expert, in short, can they trust?
Expert witness selection is an art and a science. A successful witness will not only possess the most relevant and respected credentials, but will connect to each person in the courtroom. When “facts” are at stake, and each “truth” seems created equal, decisions must be made from the gut. Your witness is a critical element of that intuitive process.
In the courtroom, everything is up for debate. The right expert or team of experts can not only provide insight on controversial topics, but can lend credibility and connection when you need it most.