Experts shouldn't force-feed jurors their opinions; instead, they should give jurors the tools -- the methodology -- to reach the right conclusions themselves.
Call it the softer approach. Rather than allowing the expert to make pronouncements with little explanation, put the explanation first. Begin by asking the expert to talk about his general methodology for dealing with cases like the one at trial. At this stage, the expert shouldn't refer to the facts of the particular case. While the expert's explanation should be detailed, his presentation should be simple and easy to understand.
Only after the expert's methodology is explained in a general way should you take up your particular case, applying each fact to the general methodology in the same step-by-step way you were taught to apply the facts to the law on a law-school exam.
This application of the facts of your case to the expert's methodology should lead clearly to the conclusion -- the opinion -- that the expert has been hired to give. If done right, the jurors should reach the same conclusion simultaneously with the expert.
Reference: Ball, David Ball on Damages (Second Edition). Next post: Ball's often-overlooked suggestion for finding inexpensive, credible experts in your own jurisdiction.
Comments