Imagine this: You've spent decades mastering the intricate language of your field—engineering, internal medicine, arson investigation—only to watch jurors' eyes glaze over as your carefully crafted technical explanation crashes against a wall of bewilderment. Unfortunately, this communication gap isn't only frustrating, it hurts your case.
As expert witnesses, attorneys who retain us call on us to communicate complex technical information in various legal settings, primarily during depositions and trials. Adapting communication styles between depositions and trials can influence the effectiveness and outcomes of cases.
Deposition Context
In depositions, we typically address more knowledgeable audiences—attorneys who may have some (admittedly superficial) familiarity with our field.
Although you should always communicate clearly, depositions often allow for:
- More technical terminology;
- Industry-specific abbreviations and acronyms; and
- Detailed explanations of methodology and reasoning.
However, opposing counsel can use deposition testimony at trial. Thus, clarity is paramount. Since roughly 90+% of cases settle before trial, a deposition may be the only opportunity to communicate our findings, making it "the trial" in many instances.
Switching to Trial Mode
Expert communication approaches need a fundamental shift when a case goes to trial. We no longer speak to lawyers, but rather to jurors who have no specialized knowledge in our subject matter and short attention spans.
As one law professor noted in a CNN commentary about legal communication, "You are not speaking to an appellate panel." Likewise, when testifying at trial, you are not speaking to your fellow expert witnesses.
Consider six strategies for effective trial communication:
- Simplify without patronizing: Break down complex concepts, as if explaining them to a seventh grader, but don’t talk down to jurors.
- Use concrete analogies: Find everyday comparisons that illustrate technical points. For example, a Duke engineering professor recently explained the vulnerability of carbon fiber (used in the ill-fated "Titan" deep-sea submersible, which tried to reach the Titanic’s wreckage) by comparing its carbon fiber components to a croissant. This relatable image effectively conveys how combining materials can create unexpected weaknesses. A combo of butter and dough makes a delicious croissant. However, the blend of carbon and fiber components does not make a durable undersea craft aimed at reaching the ocean floor.
- Maintain eye contact: Connect with individual jurors through direct eye contact when explaining key points.
- Avoid jargon: Technical medical terms and other domain–specific terms that are second nature to us are completely foreign to jurors.
- Strive for brevity but thoroughness in direct examination. Speak in "soundbites": Deliver information in concise, memorable statements versus lengthy technical explanations.
- Slow down! Give jurors time to process unfamiliar concepts.
A Lesson from Hollywood
In the 1993 movie "Philadelphia," Denzel Washington's character repeatedly asks witnesses, "Explain it to me like I'm an eight-year-old." This approach, which requests a simple explanation, frames how experts should communicate with jurors.
The Bottom Line
Just as legal commentators must adapt their communication styles for TV audiences versus legal briefs, expert witnesses must tailor their approach between depositions and trials. While Depositions may allow for more technical and expansive discussions, trials demand clarity, simplicity, and relatability.
Expertise is only valuable if a lay jury can understand it. An expert with more degrees than a thermometer who cannot communicate effectively to a jury will ultimately fail.
Master both contexts, though, and you'll become a more effective and sought-after expert witness!
