Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Preparing to Cross-Examine the Doctor

I men­tioned here my con­tention that the only way to cross-examine an expert wit­ness about his con­clu­sions is to know at least as much, if not more about the nar­row sub­ject of his tes­ti­mony that hurts you than he does. It’s my posi­tion that, while I will prob­a­bly never know as much about pedi­atrics than the State’s expert, I can know more about hymenal notch­ing than him or her. (I use pedi­atrics and hymenal notch­ing as an exam­ple because pedi­a­tri­cian tes­ti­mony is often used by the State in cases involv­ing false alle­ga­tions of child sex­ual abuse. Courts will, for rea­sons that escape me, allow these experts to tes­tify that the med­ical evi­dence is “not incon­sis­tent with” the allegations.)

Where do we begin our own sci­en­tific or other tech­ni­cal edu­ca­tion? With a nar­row­ing of the inquiry. The process of decid­ing what premises we will chal­lenge can be short­cut con­sid­er­ably if we can talk with the State’s expert before­hand and he will dis­cuss his find­ings with us. If the case is ade­quately funded, we may have an expert of our own to con­sult with; she might be able to divine the State’s expert’s assumptions.

Oth­er­wise, the expert’s premises will some­times be laid out for us, or at least deducible from the sub­ject mat­ter of the expert’s tes­ti­mony. For exam­ple, we might note that the expert observed sev­eral con­di­tions (A, B, C) and con­cluded from these con­di­tions that X hap­pened. We can set down sev­eral premises that this con­clu­sion might depend on:

That A shows that X hap­pened;
That B shows that X hap­pened; or
That C shows that X happened.

These are some of the things that we want to inves­ti­gate, but not all. Even if we could show that none of these premises were true, we would have to inves­ti­gate four other pos­si­ble premises:

That A and B show that X hap­pened;
That A and C show that X hap­pened;
That B and C show that X hap­pened; and
That A, B, and C together show that X happened.

A and B together might have much greater sig­nif­i­cance than either con­di­tion alone.

So now we have a list of the premises that we want to test — seven in this exam­ple. What do we do next?

Tune in tomor­row to find out.

Tech­no­rati Tags:

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

Leave a non-anonymous Reply