I frequently read advice and reactions from attorneys and judges regarding expert witnesses. It is rare, however, to hear it from a juror’s perspective. Here are one juror’s comments after a recent seven day trial:
Expert Witness for Plaintiff [EWP] was not board certified and claimed the reason he wasn’t was that it was too expensive.
EWP was flown into [city X] from [several states away]. This was suspect , as we do have a leading medical center here; surely they could have found an ontological hematologist from [city X]. Would have set better with [city X] jury for sure!
EWP’ s attitude — I’m right and everyone else is wrong — was simply not digestible by this jury. It just didn’t wash. There not standard of protocol for this treatment, so there can be no absolutes.
EWP did not address the jury, but plaintiff’s lawyer.
EWP was not cool or calm.
The Expert Witness for the Defense [EWD] was excellent. Spoke directly to the jury, was board certified…EWD was careful to state, that for this patient, this situation, the doctor made right decisions. Plaintiff’s lawyer was able to get EWD to agree to many things, but EWD kept clarifying with, “I agree to this, but not for this patient in this situation.”