Thoughts From The Trenches #3: Experts — Trust Beats Science

When jurors look at an expert, they are trying to answer a fundamental question: Can I trust this person to help me make sense of this mess?

Real-World Beats Theory

“Is he an egghead, or does he have a real job?” I have heard this message from jurors for decades. Why? Jurors often cite personal examples where their own work experience was at odds with what the company “experts” told them. Jurors are inherently skeptical of "professional witnesses". They want someone who has gotten their hands dirty. Practical experience equals an instant credibility bump. An expert who can say, "I’ve spent 20 years designing these engines," has an advantage over someone who has only taught about the problem. A variation on this theme is, “Mr. X reached his conclusion in the lab; Mr. Y reached his conclusion in the real world.”

Jurors also consider objectivity when determining trust.

• Does the witness always testify for one side?
• What percentage of the expert’s income comes from testifying?
• How much comes from this specific client?

“You don’t bite the hand that feeds you” is a frequently cited real-world criteria.

If the expert shrugs and says, “I don’t really know,” to these types of questions, it’s a self-inflicted wound. Jurors don't see it as forgetfulness; they see it as evasion because the real answer hurts. I continue to be surprised how often this still occurs in deposition and even at trial.

Ignoring The Rules

If an expert deviates from accepted, industry-standard evaluation and testing procedures, the jury will find out. Opposing counsel will make sure of it. The moment the jury senses an expert used a homegrown methodology, they smell a lie. To them, skipping standard procedures looks like the expert is cutting corners or manufacturing a result just to help win the case. Similarly, “cherry-picking” data when all the data is available has the exact same impact.

“Where Is This Going?”

Ever been listening to someone and just thought, “Will you please just get to the point?” This should be the mantra of expert testimony. Jurors’ attention spans and their patience are getting shorter. Long explanations that end with a conclusion are difficult to follow, create frustration, and may even be seen as intentionally confusing.

An “evidence dump” also burns prime juror attention time. The expert should give the conclusion first. Once jurors know the destination, they will actually try to stay awake for the journey of how the expert got there.

When Critical Evidence Can Backfire

Leading with the scientifically "strongest" evidence can backfire. While many complex factors may support the expert’s conclusion, the immediate goal is to build trust.

Start with one or two factors that are the easiest to understand, or those that are consistent with a juror's everyday experiences. Doing this builds immediate credibility, making the juror more receptive to giving the expert the benefit of the doubt on more complex, technical factors that will be explained next. Even when jurors never fully understand the science, trust can often fill over the comprehension gap.

The Bottom Line

You can win a point based on trust, even if the jury doesn't fully grasp the science. You cannot win a point if they understand the science but don't trust the messenger. Getting “juror input” while preparing testimony can identify unforeseen vulnerabilities, ensure the jurors’ questions are answered, and streamline the presentation.

#MockJury #TrialLawyers #CourtroomStrategy #AIinLaw #Witnesses