In the episode “Tracks” of CBS’s The Good Wife, a record label sues an artist for failure to meet his contractual obligations and copyright infringement. The contrasting viewpoints of the two testifying music experts in this made-for-TV drama were entertaining to watch. However, I found myself watching TV a bit more intently than normally and analyzing every moment of the fictional trial.
What made this courtroom drama so interesting?
First, allow me to set the scene if you missed the show: one of the testifying music experts was conservative in presentation, both mentally and physically (except for the intentionally ironic keyboard necktie). He wore a button-up, collared shirt, a blazer, and glasses. He was a Caucasian male in his 60’s to 70’s, a teacher at university (the exact details slip my mind at the moment).
I found his testimony to match his demeanor and would describe it as rigid. This expert stuck to the facts, spoke in literal translations, and had a hard time seeing the other side of the coin when asked about opposing views. He saw music notes on sheet music as black and white, literally and figuratively. He saw the literal translation of music. His explanation of music made his understanding of music seem to be learned; it appeared he studied quite hard to become an expert in music. While he did appear to be very knowledgeable about music and music theory, he appealed to logic and reasoning and would probably have the charts and research to back up any findings. He was a nervous Einstein of sorts; when asked opposing views he fumbled in disbelief and uncertainty. He was clearly outside his comfort zone when answering unknown questions from opposing counsel; he didn’t have a chance to think about them beforehand. He wasn’t quick on his feet. He made broad, generalizing statements (not quoting his exact words here; paraphrasing what I remember): “All music follows this pattern.” “All pop songs have these same four notes.” “Every hit song has these illustrative qualities.” While confidence and certainty is valued in an expert witness, the inability to show empathy and entertain outside views is not as appealing.
The other music expert that testified was, as to be expected, the opposite of the other (remember this is a prime time TV show, with blatant subtleties). This man was in his 30’s to 40’s and studied at Julliard. The examining attorney had to get this music expert to admit that he had a Doctorate in Music; he was quite humble about it. The African-American male appealed to the emotional rhetoric when exploring the qualities of music. He talked more about feelings and meaning behind the music. He oozed coolness, donning an unbuttoned jacket over a casual t-shirt and rocking that je ne sais quoi. His words flowed easily. He had a quiet confidence about himself; he was self-assured and confident, but not cocky. His passion for music seemed to be ingrained in his being; it appeared that music was a part of him and came very easy to him. He appealed to feelings. He (or examining counsel; can’t recall) cross-referenced well known songs as part of his argument, which got the judge to verbally approve of his arguments.
I’ve just described what I recall from my initial viewing of the show, and that is what we get in the courtroom: one impression. I only watched this episode of The Good Wife once, live, and I didn’t pause or replay a scene to take notes. I purposely did this to reflect real life. The people in the courtroom can’t pause testimony or rewind and replay. You truly have one chance to make the only impression.
If your experts respect this live, one-take approach to testimony, they will come to court well-prepared and treat it as a one-night-only premiere, not a dress rehearsal. Ill-prepared witnesses fail to develop rapport or build trust with a jury or the judge. How likely are you to believe the teachings of a disorganized, stumbling expert on the stand? Don’t create, or let your expert witness create, more hurdles for your audience to understand experience, logic, facts, or reasoning. Come to court polished, prepared, and practiced, and make sure your expert witness understands this logic and does the same.