0:00

So this is a quote from a article in the Journal

0:05

of Legal Ethics

0:07

that I think is very important to understand.

0:10

It says, if there are a thousand experts in a specific field

0:13

and 995 subscribed to one view on an issue,

0:17

and the other five hold a different view, is likely

0:21

that two experts will appear in court

0:23

that possess opposing views.

0:25

Even though 995 held one view

0:29

and five held the other, um, lawyers are going to be able

0:33

to find expert witnesses that will

0:36

often provide an opposing view.

0:38

Even though you, as the expert witness might say,

0:41

this is clearly a deviation of a standard of care.

0:44

This is clearly the cause of the damages.

0:47

Um, there will be people who will disagree

0:51

and when it comes to the jury, they're going

0:56

to hear the qualifications

0:59

of one of the experts.

1:02

They're gonna hear the qualifications of the other expert,

1:04

which will often both be pretty impressive.

1:08

So how is it that a jury is able to discern

1:13

the opinion that's represented by 995 people versus

1:18

the opinion that's held by only five people?

1:21

And I can tell you quite often when I'm asked

1:24

to do expert opinion work, as I said,

1:26

I don't usually know whether it's a plaintiff

1:27

or a defense lawyer that's asking me,

1:29

I will give my opinion on a case

1:32

and say, uh, this is clearly a tumor in the brain.

1:36

And the lawyers will say, thank you very much.

1:39

We, uh, we, you know, we appreciate your time.

1:42

Uh, we, you know, we don't, we won't need you for this case.

1:46

And generally that means that I gave the opinion,

1:48

which was the 995 of someone else,

1:54

and they then go seeking another expert witness that might,

1:58

you know, have the opposite opinion.

2:01

That's unfortunately the truth.

2:03

With regard to the medical-legal process,

2:07

usually there are opposing expert witnesses that are

2:10

of equal impressive credentials

2:14

that are giving opposite opinions.

2:17

So jurors may choose, this is from University

2:19

of Pennsylvania Law Review.

2:21

The jurors may choose to believe one expert over the other

2:24

on the basis of factors irrelevant to the scientific merit

2:28

of the opinion of the expert, such

2:30

as the expert's appearance, tone, and demeanor.

2:33

And I think that's true, and this is part of what Kelly

2:35

and the other lawyers do, is coaching the

2:41

witness to be more likable, to be more believable,

2:46

to be more credible than the opposing

2:49

counsels expert witness.

2:51

And how you behave in trial

2:53

or at the deposition in some cases will make the difference

2:59

With regard to the judge and jury.

3:01

You know, a jury is a group of 12 people

3:03

of average ignorance.

3:05

Uh, this is a quote from, uh, one of the legal forum,

3:10

and that's true.

3:11

You, you know, they are lay people by

3:14

and large, they're not physicians.

3:16

So part of what you do as the expert witness

3:19

is endear yourself as a teacher of the jury,

3:23

as a teacher of the medicine.

3:25

And depending upon how well you do as a likable teacher,

3:30

you will or will not be more credible

3:33

to them than the opposing counsel.

3:36

But a lawyer will do anything to win a case.

3:38

Sometimes he will even tell the truth.