7623 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There is an aura of "peer acceptability" that surrounds published work which does not attach to unpublished research. If at all possible, the extra time and effort should be made to publish your work, preferably not just in an agency circular. Although probably unjustified, the greater weight given by lawyers and judges to glossy-paper finished reports will no doubt continue. WHAT TO EXPECT IN CROSS-EXAMINATION When scientists think of trials or adminstrative proceedings in which they are to appear, they may not think of the purpose of the hearing, or even the purpose of their testimony. They may not think of the novel scientific and legal issues involved. Often, their main concern is how bad cross-examination will be. To some scientists cross-examination is a forceful wrenching from the world of the reasonable and polite to the world in which word games prevail over accepted fact. In some trials, unfortunately, this has been true, but a witness can control the cross-examination to a remarkable extent by being adequately prepared. Most of this preparation should be directed by his lawyer, but there are some general points which apply to most situations. The following guidelines have been used in preparing witnesses for the EPA head- quarters hearings on pesticides and Section 307(a) of the FWPCA: 1. You have no obligation to answer a question which you do not feel qualified to answer. You are not a defendant in a criminal trial required to answer. An "I am not qualified to answer that" or "I do not have enough facts to answer that" is perfectly acceptable. 2. Do not be lured into areas beyond your field. 3. Ask for clarification of a question if you have any doubt what is being asked. 4. When a hypothetical question is posed, make certain all elements of the hypothesis you need to be able to answer are included clearly in the question. 5. Take your time in responding to questions. 6. Do not elaborate beyond what is necessary to give a complete answer --on the other hand, do not allow yourself to fall into the trap of giving an "out of context" answer--an answer which, in and of itself, is true but which has a misleading implication if further comment is not given. If you cannot answer with a "yes" or "no," make it plain you need to qualify your answer. 7. You may be asked to comment on works of other scientists you do not know or have not read recently--e. g., "I show you this list of instream flow figures from Iowa--aren't they awfully high?" You probably need to know how the research was conducted, the details of the methods, and much more before you can comment accurately. 14