7623 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ADMINISTRATIVE-LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS This refers to those administrative proceedings in which "generic" rules are being considered. This may be in an agency rule-making hearing or in Federal or State legislative proceedings in which proposed statutes are being debated. There is usually only informational questioning, not in an adversary setting. Often scientists appear in panels, and most of the time the bulk of the testimony has been prepared in advance. PRESENTING DIRECT EVIDENCE The direct testimony in a court trial is usually given orally, often with reference to a written report and always with access to written factual data upon which the expert is relying in rendering his conclusions. And almost always, the direct testimony relates to the effects of flow at specific points. In administrative proceedings, quite often the direct testimony is in written narrative form and only the cross-examination is done orally. There are many advantages to the written narrative: The witness and his lawyer can be sure that the important points are covered, and difficult concepts can be presented with more precision than is usually possible in oral testimony. The opposition is usually given a week or two to study the document before the witness appears. This allows them to narrow the areas of cross- examination and to prepare for the often intricate questioning of the scientific data. It allows the cross-examiner to have his own expert go over the material with a fine-toothed comb. The end result is a more organized hearing. It also allows the hearing to go forward without the necessity of elaborate "discovery," since the tender of written direct testimony well in advance of the hearing serves the basic purposes of pretrial discovery: Avoidance of surprise. Unfortunately, one of the by-products of the use of written direct testi- mony which is entered into the record without reading is a feeling by some witnesses that their testimony did not hold up well. This is because the experienced cross-examining attorney chooses to question the witness only on points on which he thinks the witness is not capable of giving firm, well documented answers. Thus, witnesses have gone an entire day without being asked to discuss their basic research. Nevertheless, the results of that research will be used if it is adequately presented in the written testimony. A large problem encountered by trial lawyers is the natural resistance on the part of scientists to write a complete narrative rather than a short precis of their work. There may be an assumption that whatever the rules at the hearing, they will get to elaborate orally on the presentation. In several instances the opposition attorneys have not cross-examined at all because otherwise dangerous witnesses did not present a statement worthy of the under- lying research or investigations. The rule to remember in writing direct 4