8127/frame/fm

 
i.
The danger of “expert attorneys.”
Remember that 
 
you
are the scien-
tific expert, not the attorneys, the judge, or anyone else in the courtroom
(save perhaps another expert). You should give your attorney enough back-
ground information for her to understand the meaning of the tests, but this
does not and should not make the attorney a scientific expert. You should
never be a shill for the attorney’s opinion.
Just as dangerous as the ignorant attorney are “expert attorneys” who
consider that they are indeed expert in the science, and could testify but for
a technicality. There seems to be a trend for attorneys specializing in physical
evidence to advertise themselves as “physical evidence experts,” “scientific
evidence experts,” or, most often, “DNA experts.” Attorneys can and should
be an expert in the legal issues relating to scientific evidence; they cannot
and should not represent themselves as scientific experts.
 
4.
Be Familiar with Legal Rules and Procedures
Just as attorneys should refrain from representing themselves as scientific
experts, the scientist should not try to be a legal expert. Objections to “com-
pound question” and “argumentative” coming from the stand will only annoy
everyone and get you in trouble. However, you should be familiar with
general courtroom procedure and the portions of the law that directly affect
scientific and expert testimony. You should also make a point to review any
statutory or case law that applies to the material you intend to present in a
hearing or trial, and to discuss specific implications with your attorney client.
Your attorney should also be alert and attentive, not only during direct
examination of you, but especially during cross-examination, so that she can
pull you out of any legal quagmires using the appropriate objections. Because
the attorney may be concentrating on preparing the next set of questions
and not paying full attention, it is beneficial to the expert to familiarize
himself with the expectations of, and limits on, expert testimony. For exam-
ple, we know of an instance where opposing counsel wrote points on an easel
pad, none of which was actually said by the witness. Opposing counsel
attempted to move this page into evidence while the witness’s attorney was
not paying attention. Fortunately, the witness was familiar with the fact that
attorneys cannot give evidence, and was able to get his attorney’s attention
to object before the deed was completed.
8127/frame/ch11 Page 291 Monday, July 24, 2000 10:01 AM

---

292
Principles and Practice of Criminalistics