It’s no secret the American public is more skeptical now than ever. Distrust of institutions – the federal government, media and medical authorities, to name a few – is at an all-time high.
With the public so skeptical of traditional authorities, Internet resources have become a frequent first stop when people are looking for answers – whether the question is something as routine as “Can I ignore my check engine light?” or as potentially life changing as “Do I have cancer?”
Just last week, we were fascinated to read about a new website called CrowdMed that outsources your medical diagnosis to the public. You submit a description of what’s ailing you, and the site’s “medical detectives” will do the sleuthing to figure out your condition. The surprising part is CrowdMed’s detectives don’t need to be doctors or nurses, and it brags that it doesn’t care about their formal credentials – all that matters is whether they can figure out the patient’s problem.
With the public so skeptical of traditional authorities, Internet resources have become a frequent first stop when people are looking for answers – whether the question is something as routine as “Can I ignore my check engine light?” or as potentially life changing as “Do I have cancer?”
Just last week, we were fascinated to read about a new website called CrowdMed that outsources your medical diagnosis to the public. You submit a description of what’s ailing you, and the site’s “medical detectives” will do the sleuthing to figure out your condition. The surprising part is CrowdMed’s detectives don’t need to be doctors or nurses, and it brags that it doesn’t care about their formal credentials – all that matters is whether they can figure out the patient’s problem.
In the courtroom, we believe the public’s widespread skepticism has important implications for expert testimony. In a world where, thanks to the Internet, everyone’s an expert and the influence of traditional authorities is eroding, why should a jury simply accept the word of your highly paid expert? Why is your Harvard professor’s opinion more valid than that of any schlub who can navigate over to WebMD?
Perhaps it’s time to rethink what makes a good expert witness. Although affiliation with a prestigious institution and winning awards are always nice qualities in a witness, they matter less in a world where the public is skeptical of those institutions. In fact, a nationwide survey we conducted last year revealed that only 6 percent said having a famous employer (such as Harvard or Stanford) was one of their most important factors in how credible they find an expert witness – the same number who chose how many awards the expert has received.
Instead of just trusting the authorities, today’s skeptical jurors want to be convinced that an expert is credible – and nothing speaks to these jurors like experience and clear communication. In our survey, the number one factor survey respondents said they look for in an expert testimony is years of experience (75 percent), followed closely the ability to explain things in simple terms (71 percent).
From our perspective, these findings should play into both how you choose your experts and how you present them at trial. In medical cases, it might be better to choose a local doctor who’s been practicing in the community for 30 years and excels at talking to regular people than a big-name university hotshot with no bedside manner. When presenting your witness at trial, don’t gloss over that person’s experience in favor of chairmanships and accolades – let that witness talk about the thousands of patients he or she has treated and the reasons why he or she enjoys that particular specialty. And it may even be necessary to “re-train” experienced witnesses on the important of explaining things clearly with a minimum of jargon.
If you’d like our help evaluating your witnesses and helping them appeal to today’s juries, we’d be happy to lend our perspective. Contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714-754-1010 to find out more about our witness evaluation and witness preparation services.
Instead of just trusting the authorities, today’s skeptical jurors want to be convinced that an expert is credible – and nothing speaks to these jurors like experience and clear communication. In our survey, the number one factor survey respondents said they look for in an expert testimony is years of experience (75 percent), followed closely the ability to explain things in simple terms (71 percent).
From our perspective, these findings should play into both how you choose your experts and how you present them at trial. In medical cases, it might be better to choose a local doctor who’s been practicing in the community for 30 years and excels at talking to regular people than a big-name university hotshot with no bedside manner. When presenting your witness at trial, don’t gloss over that person’s experience in favor of chairmanships and accolades – let that witness talk about the thousands of patients he or she has treated and the reasons why he or she enjoys that particular specialty. And it may even be necessary to “re-train” experienced witnesses on the important of explaining things clearly with a minimum of jargon.
If you’d like our help evaluating your witnesses and helping them appeal to today’s juries, we’d be happy to lend our perspective. Contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714-754-1010 to find out more about our witness evaluation and witness preparation services.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment