Expert Witness Blog

In Cross-Examination of Experts On “Underlying Facts or Data,” Carl Robin Teague writes that cases involving complex questions of medical causation often turn on the “battle of the experts.”

Whether the testifying expert witness is a “primary” expert (i.e. published or participated in the study upon which his opinions are rely) or a “secondary” expert (i.e. is relying on a published paper describing a study in which he played no role), requests to produce the raw data underlying published scientific studies typically are countered with several arguments:

1) The published scientific study alone is sufficient, because it has been peer-reviewed.

In Anatomy of a Witness List, Hon. Michael L. Stern writes that “each witness should tell the next part of your story and move your case forward… By the time any expert takes the stand, the foundational facts for his or her opinion should have been presented through other witnesses.”

If the testimony of the prior witnesses shifts and adds to the assumptions on which the expert has based a pretrial opinion, an expert can make adjustments (presuming that these remain consistent with the expert’s ultimate conclusions). A late appearance in the trial also allows the expert to summarize and re-emphasize the favorable information supporting the case.

From Advocate Magazine, June 2008.

In Cross-Examination of Experts On “Underlying Facts or Data,” Carl Robin Teague writes that products liability cases involving complex questions of medical causation often turn on the “battle of the experts.”

As this battle takes on heightened importance, more and more litigants – citing Daubert’s focus on the expert’s methodology and procedural rules requiring disclosure of the expert’s reliance materials – have successfully sought to review the raw data underlying the opinions proffered by opposing experts. In some cases, the testifying expert relies upon his own published studies and actually possesses the data underlying them. More often, the expert relies upon scientific studies published by others. In these latter cases, the testifying experts likely have no access to the data; the courts must arbiter subpoenas duces tecum and motions to quash involving the production of sensitive data from scientists who have nothing to do with the case.

From Expert Alert, ABA, Summer 2008

In Anatomy of a Witness List, Hon. Michael L. Stern writes that “each witness should tell the next part of your story and move your case forward… By the time any expert takes the stand, the foundational facts for his or her opinion should have been presented through other witnesses.”

There are as host of reasons why most expert witnesses should be presented last in order. They are the cleanup batters for liability and damages issues. Counsel are depending on these well-paid players to hit trial home runs. Experts should be persuasive salespersons who should be able to summarize the salient points of the case for the jury and maybe even add an element of respectability to some claims.

From Advocate Magazine, June 2008.