WSP06480

• File Number: 8546.200
• Description: AWDI - Mailing Lists/Correspondence
• State: CO
• Basin: Rio Grande
• Water Division: 3
• Date: 6/6/1983
• Title: The San Luis Valley Groundwater Dispute
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

J>-

:'"-

00

~'......
\ ,':)

7.

3.

Strategist - The good expert shares co-equally with
the lawyer the job of developing basic approaches to
the case. what can be done with the evidence? What
approaches to opponents and court might be
persuasive? What avenues of settlement might be
explored? what evaluation should be given to any
settlement possibility? In the complex groundwater
case, the possibility of a case becoming submerged
in technical details calls upon the expert to
utilize his perspective on the whole problem and to
provide leadership to the litigation team.

4.

Workhorse - Not to overlook the obvious, it is of
vital importance that the expert and his staff carry
the great burden of assembling numbers and charts
that tell the story of the case and arrange them
into court-suitable form. Likewise, the expert must
digest and analyze the data and exhibits of the
opponents. Although laborious, these are essentia.1.
tasks. Again, an important element of these
functions is the maintenance of the perspective on
the case to be able to see matters of importance and
to distinguish the mass of trivia.

5.

Trial Preparation - The preparation of the actual
testimony is a crucial step in the development of
the case. The expert has a great opportunity for
leadership in this area by the development of his
own outline of testimony. The great risk in
presenting a complex groundwater case is that of
drowning both audience and participants in the mass
of detail that must be handled. The concise and
cogent outline of testimony is essential in order
for any party to carry the "burden of clarity".

6.

Trial Assistance - The expert is indispensable in
the process of the trial in hearing testimony of
others and advising the lawyer of strengths and
weaknesses of the case as it proceeds. The develop-
ment of the cross-examination of other witnesses
falls heavily on other experts. Again, the key
principle is the maintenance of perspective.
Numerous nitpicking questions will generally not
comprise an effective cross-examination. Basic
princil?les of agreement may be much more important.

f'"r--1lc...t ~t\*,lJ'"
Trial!' [ . . - The obvious role of the expert
is that of direct testimony. The key here is there
should be no surprises. The lawyer and expert have
by now worked together well enough and long enough
that all answers are known. The demeanor of the
expert is important. Is he the relatively objective
and well-educated expert that will actually help the

-4-