§4:255 Practice Tip: What the Expert Did Not Do
Remember to ask the expert not only what he did to prepare himself to render an opinion, but what he didn’t do. Of course, you cannot come right out and ask, “Please tell me what you failed to do in rendering an opinion.”
Instead, ask the expert whether he did or didn’t do specific things.
[A] team composed of specialists in neurology, psychology, and rehabilitative medicine at Emory University have recently looked at the curious ability of some metaphoric language to be processed not just in the speech regions in the brain, but in those associated with bodily action as well.
Read the full post for some interesting thoughts about "llitigation uses of tactile metaphoric language."
It’s interesting that our law school evidence classes teach us the mechanics of the rules of evidence, however, (if my memory serves) we’re not given much guidance on how to decide whether, assuming a question is objectionable, it is a good idea to object during trial. It is true that the rules of evidence have application outside the context of a jury trial, and in fact it can be years before a lawyer actually has to make the decision whether to raise an objection at trial. But the question whether it makes strategic sense to object in the presence of the jury merits some analysis.
I consulted Professor McElhaney and, as expected, he had wisdom to impart. In Litigation, he articulates rules for when to object. I’ll list the first five here.
In this series of posts, I'll dig into the archives of The Trial Practice Tips Weblog and highlight some of my prior posts about depositions. Although you can see all of these post in this weblog's deposition category, I thought I'd try to reorganize some of them in a new way.
I'll begin with the first five ways a lawyer can ruin a deposition. I've been guilty of all of them at one time or another.