What Kind of Expert Testimony do You Provide in the Courtroom

They examine the attitudes and behaviours of these two polar extremes of experts in the pretrial phase, the testimony phase and the post-trial phase of courtroom proceedings. At Wigmore on Alcohol, we’ve observed these patterns across hundreds of cases involving personal injury claims and overserving liability matters. Understanding where you fall on this spectrum can dramatically improve your effectiveness as an expert witness.

The long-standing division of expert witnesses into partisan bad guys and objective good guys is not a useful way of considering role-demands and effectiveness. Instead, recognising your approach to testimony preparation and delivery offers more practical insights for improvement.

Knowledge of law:

CO: usually aware, occasionally more so than the particular lawyer in the trial
CU: usually unaware or minimally informed

Record keeping:

CO: Thorough; tends to anticipate cross-examination; exact as to dates, time places, detail, prior hospital records
CU: Often tends to be variable or average; omits or uncertain of dates, times, etc.

Effective testimony begins long before you enter the courtroom. Courtroom-orientated experts understand that meticulous documentation and legal awareness form the foundation of credible witness work. In personal injury and overserving cases, this preparation proves especially critical when opposing counsel challenges your methodology or conclusions.

Target of testimony:

CO: Jury or judge
CU: Lawyer or mental health colleagues

Language:

CO: Spoken English
CU: Professional terminology

Purpose of testimony:

CO: Persuasion; teaching and mild advocacy of his/her findings
CU: “Objective” presentation of clinical information

Reaction to cross-examination:

CO: Normal acceptance as routine procedure
CU: Resentment, anger, professional confusion

The courtroom-orientated expert recognises that effective testimony means communicating complex forensic concepts to laypeople. Whether presenting blood alcohol analysis in an overserving case or THC detection windows in a personal injury claim, your ability to translate technical findings into clear, persuasive language determines your impact.

Reaction after court findings, especially to distortion of opinion and loss of case by client:

CO: Acceptance; learns; reappears in court
CU: Nonacceptance; alienation; reacts by future avoidance

At the extreme, the courtroom unfamiliar man often leaves with a sense of anger, will sometimes perceive himself and his views as having been on trial and now then will make speeches to professional groups about the unbridgeable gap between law and psychology (or psychiatry).

This is quite a perceptive observation as I have heard such speeches at forensic science meetings. The ability to learn from each testimony experience, regardless of outcome, separates effective expert witnesses from those who struggle with the demands of legal proceedings.

With over 700 cases of testimony experience across Canadian courts, Wigmore on Alcohol has developed a courtroom-orientated approach to expert witness services. Our work in forensic toxicology, alcohol analysis, and substance impairment cases demonstrates how preparation, clear communication, and professional resilience combine to deliver compelling testimony.

Whether you’re seeking an expert witness for personal injury litigation or overserving liability matters, understanding these distinctions helps you select professionals who will effectively advocate for your case through credible, persuasive testimony.

Reference
Brodsky, S.L., and Robey, A., “On Becoming an Expert Witness: Issues of Orientation and Effectiveness”, Professional Psychology, 173-176, Spring