When somebody asks you a question, you typically look at that person when you answer. A trial qualifications is different. Although an attorney asks you a question, direct your response to the jurors. You have to act as if a juror had just asked you the question. To be polite and to look semi-normal, you have to pay attention and look at the lawyer while he's asking you the question. When the question is over, however, you can turn toward the jurors and begin your response. Looking at the jurors will be a new expertise; it is counterintuitive, and may feel odd to you when you do it. But it is an important part of keeping their attention.
Because the initial questions your attorney asks you will generally have to do with your accomplishments, and the judge determines whether you have the accomplishments to be accepted as an expert in your field, you could address the judge with your answer. If that is feasible, go ahead and do it. I find that in most trial settings, the witness stand faces out in the same direction as the judge, and is usually set on a lower platform. Attempting to crane my neck or body to look at the judge is uncomfortable so I strike a balance by varying between looking back at the lawyer, looking over at the jury, and looking up at the judge.
Because the initial questions your attorney asks you will generally have to do with your accomplishments, and the judge determines whether you have the accomplishments to be accepted as an expert in your field, you could address the judge with your answer. If that is feasible, go ahead and do it. I find that in most trial settings, the witness stand faces out in the same direction as the judge, and is usually set on a lower platform. Attempting to crane my neck or body to look at the judge is uncomfortable so I strike a balance by varying between looking back at the lawyer, looking over at the jury, and looking up at the judge.
In general, one or two jurors will listen closely and know what you are saying. Make eye contact with them and permit their gestures and their body language to encourage you in your explanations. You will have a sense of whether the jury understands, accepts, and is convinced by what you are saying.
If you see by their facial expressions or head gestures that they do not know your answer, then the earlier guidance regarding short answers will not apply. Keep their attention by rephrasing your answer with a new analogy or in a different way - but still as simply as possible. Long answers are still a bad idea, even if you believe you have been asked to elaborate on something. Limit any elaboration to several sentences. Anything longer and you may bore the jury.
During cross examination, an opposing lawyer may try to cut you off because he does not want you to be any clearer to the jury or to make points with them.
If you believe that you need to say more as part of your answer, you can say aloud that you have not finished your answer yet and you need to do that.
The lawyers may argue among themselves at this point, but more often than not, you will be allowed to continue to answer and explain. The positive part of this is that the fracas between the attorneys will capture the juror's attention and keep it on you during any continued response. The side benefit is that those jurors with whom you were directly making eye contact will be the most likely ones to be able to explain this part of the case to other jurors during subsequent deliberations. So your efforts will bear fruit later and have value beyond the few moments of your response. When your answer to an lawyer's question is complete, you can shift your gaze back from the jury box to the attorney to await your next question.
Judd Robbins has been an internationally recognized expert witness since 1986 in the US and in the UK. He has testified in State and Federal courts and has been featured as a testifying computer forensics expert on MSNBC, Court TV, and Tech TV. His cases range widely from intellectual property infringement to murder. He has been a best-selling author of more than 30 training and computer books and has created more than 25 training DVD
If you see by their facial expressions or head gestures that they do not know your answer, then the earlier guidance regarding short answers will not apply. Keep their attention by rephrasing your answer with a new analogy or in a different way - but still as simply as possible. Long answers are still a bad idea, even if you believe you have been asked to elaborate on something. Limit any elaboration to several sentences. Anything longer and you may bore the jury.
During cross examination, an opposing lawyer may try to cut you off because he does not want you to be any clearer to the jury or to make points with them.
If you believe that you need to say more as part of your answer, you can say aloud that you have not finished your answer yet and you need to do that.
The lawyers may argue among themselves at this point, but more often than not, you will be allowed to continue to answer and explain. The positive part of this is that the fracas between the attorneys will capture the juror's attention and keep it on you during any continued response. The side benefit is that those jurors with whom you were directly making eye contact will be the most likely ones to be able to explain this part of the case to other jurors during subsequent deliberations. So your efforts will bear fruit later and have value beyond the few moments of your response. When your answer to an lawyer's question is complete, you can shift your gaze back from the jury box to the attorney to await your next question.
Judd Robbins has been an internationally recognized expert witness since 1986 in the US and in the UK. He has testified in State and Federal courts and has been featured as a testifying computer forensics expert on MSNBC, Court TV, and Tech TV. His cases range widely from intellectual property infringement to murder. He has been a best-selling author of more than 30 training and computer books and has created more than 25 training DVD
If you believe that you need to say more as part of your answer, you can say aloud that you have not finished your answer yet and you need to do that.
The lawyers may argue among themselves at this point, but more often than not, you will be allowed to continue to answer and explain. The positive part of this is that the fracas between the attorneys will capture the juror's attention and keep it on you during any continued response. The side benefit is that those jurors with whom you were directly making eye contact will be the most likely ones to be able to explain this part of the case to other jurors during subsequent deliberations. So your efforts will bear fruit later and have value beyond the few moments of your response. When your answer to an lawyer's question is complete, you can shift your gaze back from the jury box to the attorney to await your next question.
Judd Robbins has been an internationally recognized expert witness since 1986 in the US and in the UK. He has testified in State and Federal courts and has been featured as a testifying computer forensics expert on MSNBC, Court TV, and Tech TV. His cases range widely from intellectual property infringement to murder. He has been a best-selling author of more than 30 training and computer books and has created more than 25 training DVDs and videos. In 2010, his book "Expert Witness Training" was published by Presentation Dynamics. Robbins has advanced degrees from UC Berkeley and the University of Michigan, has been an Information Systems manager and an Education Systems manager, and consults in both computer and legal issues. Learn more about Mr. Robbins and his Expert Witness Training materials at http://www.juddrobbins.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Judd_Robbins
The lawyers may argue among themselves at this point, but more often than not, you will be allowed to continue to answer and explain. The positive part of this is that the fracas between the attorneys will capture the juror's attention and keep it on you during any continued response. The side benefit is that those jurors with whom you were directly making eye contact will be the most likely ones to be able to explain this part of the case to other jurors during subsequent deliberations. So your efforts will bear fruit later and have value beyond the few moments of your response. When your answer to an lawyer's question is complete, you can shift your gaze back from the jury box to the attorney to await your next question.
Judd Robbins has been an internationally recognized expert witness since 1986 in the US and in the UK. He has testified in State and Federal courts and has been featured as a testifying computer forensics expert on MSNBC, Court TV, and Tech TV. His cases range widely from intellectual property infringement to murder. He has been a best-selling author of more than 30 training and computer books and has created more than 25 training DVDs and videos. In 2010, his book "Expert Witness Training" was published by Presentation Dynamics. Robbins has advanced degrees from UC Berkeley and the University of Michigan, has been an Information Systems manager and an Education Systems manager, and consults in both computer and legal issues. Learn more about Mr. Robbins and his Expert Witness Training materials at http://www.juddrobbins.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Judd_Robbins