Warning: Undefined array key "withfaq" in /home/robertmu/public_html/robertmusante-depositions-cle-webinars.com/wp/wp-content/themes/musante/inc/musante-custom.php on line 33
Attacking a “Mt. Olympus” Expert’s |
|
PAYPAL **
The adverse expert is typically the most dangerous witness and, at the same time, the most vulnerable. Most dangerous because he testifies cloaked in the mantle of the “unbiased scientist”; thus his testimony – if accepted by the jury – can determine a major issue, maybe the entire case. Yet most vulnerable because, unlike the fact witness who must defend only his first-hand observations, the expert witness must defend his testimony from attacks on a dozen fronts.
As seasoned litigators from all areas of practice have attested (see Reviews), this presentation elucidates the one-and-only logical method with which to effectively attack the (purported) scientific merits of any adverse expert’s opinion … no matter the field of (purported) expertise. Never again be the slightest intimidated when cross-examining any expert, even a “Mt. Olympus” one.
This webinar has 5 parts/5 videos. Total viewing time: approx. 6.5 hours. The agenda for each part is set out below. Links to the written materials – a 114-page PDF & 1-page PDF, the expert chart – appear below each of the videos. To sample the quality of the videos – and the quality of the teaching – watch the webinar’s first 30 minutes in the below YouTube.
The recording was made in 2013. The logic & lines of attack against experts hasn’t changed since then … NEVER will. So, the teaching points are still valid … ALWAYS will be.
Agenda for Part 1
- Several fascinating remarks re the webinar’s “ground rules”
- Introduction of a famous case and its “Mt. Olympus” expert, who will be cross-examined throughout the webinar
- 2 categories of attack against the adverse expert’s opinion
- Overview: deposition logic applied to adverse expert depositions
- When attacks against an expert should be played at deposition
- Much more of that famous case (Patience please … dozens of archetypal principles are explained and illustrated in Parts #2, 3, 4, & 5.)
- The structure of every opinion: O = R + 2F
- End point opinions, subordinate opinions, & bedrock findings & bedrock assumptions
- Critical listening skills tested
Agenda for Part 2
- The schematic every-case-forever chart introduced
- 5 categories of expert opinions
- 2 must-be-asked questions at the expert’s deposition
- 10 kinds (common names) of expert rules
- X and Y factors defined
- Five components to a great cross-examination of an adverse expert
Agenda for Part 3
- A scientific rule
- A black hole = a schnirppy, a gzornonplatz, and an event horizon
- When to use leading questions during the expert’s deposition
- Experiential rules (science vs. art)
- Adverse expert vs. cross-examiner’s expert
- Saving attacks for surprise at trial
- Attacking an experiential, “you-gotta-trust-me” rule
Agenda for Part 4
- Attacking the scope of expert’s claimed/implied area of expertise
- Non-expert rules and the cloak of expertise
- Expert’s rule’s essential factors (“necessary” and “sufficient”)
- Expert’s answer’s strength
- Expert’s weighing process
- Critical listening skills tested
- Two incredibly important – and easy to master – techniques
- Attacks vs. expert’s X factors
- The certainty scale and two archetypal arguments
- Expert’s sources of assumptions
Agenda for Part 5
- More re expert’s sources of assumptions and the chief lines of attack
- Attacking expert’s findings derived through expert methods
- Attacking expert’s findings derived through non-expert methods
- The perfection question
- Expert’s trinity of attacks vs. Y factors
- Review of some key teaching points
- Coda: Don’t squander the deposition of opposing expert
| Read the FAQ… |
|