Expert Evidence Case Studies - Training Video | Management Training | Customer Service Training

This case study examines the error of acting outside one’s area of expertise. The expert is being asked to explain the process of ouchterlony, an immunological technique used to detect the presence of human haemoglobin. The expert is Fred Anderson, who has a science degree with a major in genetics. He works as a forensic scientist specialising in population genetics, and a large amount of his work is in the area of DNA profiling.

Case Studies 2

This case study demonstrates the importance of preparation for presentation in court. The scenario demonstrates where an expert witness, Dr Jodie Witkowski, has failed to organise her notes. Her lack of preparation is revealed when the barrister cross-examines her.

Case Studies 3

This case study is a comparison between well-presented and poorly presented evidence. In this scenario, the expert is being asked about his investigation of a boat’s sinking rate. As part of the examination in chief, the expert is asked to explain how the “floodable volume” of the boat was determined. The expert is Mr Joe Bendall, who has a degree in architecture and boat design.

Case Studies 4

This case study likewise involves the contrast between well-presented and poorly presented evidence. In this scenario, the expert is being asked to explain the likelihood of DNA being accidentally transferred onto a train platform. The expert has previously given evidence about the way in which DNA can be transferred (through bodily fluids or tissues).

Case Studies 5

A comparison between a question asked in an unclear manner by the lawyer, and a clearly asked question. In this scenario, the lawyer is attempting to undermine the expert witness’s credibility. The expert is being asked how frequently he has examined the transfer of DNA.

Case Studies 6

In this scenario, the barrister is asking the expert about a sample taken from a corridor in a crime scene. The expert is being asked to explain the process of taking a control sample to verify that a positive reaction (indicating the presence of DNA) originates from the area tested. The area is very technical so listen closely for the variations between the two responses.

Case Studies 7

In the first example, the expert, forensic scientist Dr Fred Anderson, makes the statement, with a questioning intonation in his voice. The second example, the same words, but delivered with aplomb. This time the expert looks towards the judge / jury.

Case Studies 8

In the first example, the expert, Dr Jodie Witkowski, makes the statement that suggests uncertainty about her material. No eye contact to the judge. The second example, the expert clearly and carefully articulates her information in an assertive way, looking at both the barrister and the judge.

Case Studies 9

In the first example, the expert, Joe Bednall, appears to be mostly reading his evidence and doesn’t give the impression he’s across his material. The second example, the expert reads his statement, but punctuates the testimony with frequent glances toward counsel and the judge/jury. Note the firmer intonation in his voice.

Case Studies 10

In this first example, the expert, Dr Jodie Witkowski is flustered, causing the barrister to prompt her. The second example, the expert crisply delivers her statement with assurance, with occasional glances towards the judge/ jury.

Recommended Audiences