Understanding the Role of Expert Witnesses In Lawsuits

By Anthony Armand

We all know that DNA plays a critical role in a criminal trial thanks to the things we've learned watching court room dramas on television. Nobody, however, really talks about the witnesses testifying on such evidence.

Nothing is simple these days and the same thing goes for trials. At first glance, a trial is just two parties arguing about different viewpoints of facts as they apply to a law. The problem, of course, is what happens when things get complex.

Expert witnesses play a subtle, but important role in litigation. They are used to explain the complex issues that arise in such a way as to make the information understandable to the average person sitting in a jury. Let's take a closer look.

Imagine we are in a trial involving a medical malpractice claim. Is a jury going to understand the steps of a surgical procedure? Not a chance. Experts will be needed to testify what normally happens and if it did in this case.

While experts testify in civil cases, you probably know them more by their roles in criminal matters. Specifically, they testify as to cause of death and the all important DNA tests and results that often sink or save defendants.

Does expert witness testimony always prevail in lawsuits? No. One of the strategies commonly used is to nullify the impact of experts by having other experts testify against them. There is a rather famous case where this worked.

The battle of experts in the Simpson trial was classic. The prosecution experts testified Simpson's DNA was on various evidence, but the defense testified nobody could say how it got there. The jury ignored the DNA and acquitted him.

In more and more cases, a battle of the expert is what ultimately occurs. The jury ends up either believing one or just ignoring both sides. This somewhat defeats the purpose of having experts if you think about it.

At the end of the day, the expert witness is still an important player in the lawsuit process. Testimony prior to trial can even lead to resolutions early on. If it doesn't, jurors are still smart enough to figure out what is going on.