By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: There comes a moment in each expert’s testimony where the actual opinions are delivered, and they’re always delivered with something like this build-up: “I can say to a reasonable scientific certainty that….” In physician malpractice cases, substitute the word “medical” for “scientific.” That is the legal standard, but what does that
Ask the Expert What Reasonable Certainty Means Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: “Earned Dogmatism” is a relative newcomer as an academic phrase, but it refers to the closed-mindedness that sets in once one dons the “expert” hat. While we like to think of experts as broad-minded, creative, and analytical, new research suggests that the “expert” label is more likely to induce a
Address the Expert’s Earned Dogmatism Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Here is a quick quiz. Who is more likely to guess or speculate about something they don’t know, a novice or a trained expert? While we would like to think that the uninformed novice is more likely to make things up, the surprising answer is that it’s actually the expert.
Experts: Stay in the Box Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Consider the expert witness mismatch: One expert represents the common mainstream scientific view, while the other expert is there to support a theory that lies on the far side of the credibility spectrum, and may have just barely survived a Daubert challenge. Yet what jurors see is an equivalency. One
Fight False Equivalency Among Experts Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The expert has prepared thoroughly for her testimony before the judge. She knows each opinion and every foundation. The outline that counsel developed is all but memorized. But then, as she is about an hour into describing the detailed methods and conclusions, the judge’s eyes are drifting down to the
Experts: Keep It Comparative Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Okay, let’s line up: Emotional people on the right, logical people on the left. Where would you line up? Too simple? Turns out it is. The idea of classing people in broad categories like emotional/logical, creative/analytic, or “left-brained”/”right-brained” is a staple of folk psychology commonly applied to the task of
Stop Trying to Adapt to ‘Left-‘ or ‘Right-Brained’ Jurors Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: This is one of those times I expect my title to be met with a, “Well, no kidding.” Attorneys and expert witnesses know the demands of conveying often complex methods and conclusions and know the drill: simplify, simplify, simplify. So lawyers and witnesses know to keep it basic. But do
Experts: Use Small Words Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Lawyers and expert witnesses might be used to thinking of science as just one way among many of proving something: When you need to demonstrate a fact at an empirical level, commission an expert, do a study, and report the results. But there may be more to it than that.
Convey the Morality of Your Science Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: It is common experience that jurors will often set aside expert testimony. Part of it, of course, is a “hired gun” effect that in some cases leads jurors to distrust experts based on the knowledge that they’ve been paid for their opinions by one side or the other. But over
First Expert Rule: Keep It Concrete Read More »
By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Justice may be blind, but hired experts can see pretty darned well in our litigation system. No, a responsible expert won’t lie in order to support their client. But yes, a knowledge of who the client is can’t help but have at least a subtle influence on the resulting testimony.
Consider a Blind Expert Witness Read More »