Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />~.:"'"" <br />l..C <br />,-1 <br />,;) <br /> <br />"'1 <br />'-' <br /> <br />6. <br /> <br />brilliant ploy or question in the courtroom, but, <br />more than likely, will be won if the facts and legal <br />arguments are carefully presented in a logical <br />sequence. This means that careful attention must be <br />given to what the expert is saying, remembering that <br />the expert is not an advocate but a professional who <br />cannot bend the facts to suit a particular <br />pre-conceived legal theory that the lawyer wishes to <br />advance. A frank and open joint development of the <br />case will avoid the lawyer 's frustratio.nof a legal <br />position unsupported by facts and an expert expected <br />to perjure himself. <br /> <br />4 . <br /> <br />The Liste.ner: Because the type of case is not as <br />dependent on the particular brilliance of the lawyer <br />alone as it is on the joint performance of the <br />lawyer and the expert, the lawyer must be a good <br />listener. He must listen to his own expert with <br />respect to what the facts shawanO. he must listen to <br />the opposing expert's testimony and weigh what is <br />said against the facts that his own expert has <br />tendered. A thoughtful consideration of the two <br />presentations analyzed by a mino. trained in the law <br />will often lead to very profitable lines of <br />cross-examination and to redirect examination. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />The Arbitrator: The involvement of s.everal experts <br />ano. several lawyers in a long and complex trial will <br />inevitably lead to disagreements among members of <br />the trial team. Experts often become so involved in <br />the detail of their own analyses that they tend to <br />lose sight of the main objectives in the case. The <br />lawyer must be able to arbitrate these disputes and <br />restore a spirit of cooperation and unified <br />direction. <br /> <br />The Decision Maker: The lawyer must bear in mind <br />that though his central "starring" role may be <br />somewhat diluted by sharing much of the development <br />of the case with other members of the trial team, <br />the client still expects him to be the ultimate <br />decision-maker in prosecuting the cas.e. When the <br />time comes that he and his co-counsel cannot agree <br />on a particular legal point, or when his experts are <br />hopelessly mired in some technical argument, he ~t <br />assume a leadership role, make a judgment and tell <br />the team what course of action will be followed. <br /> <br />III. THE SAN I,UIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER DISPUTE <br /> <br />A. Following work by the U.S.G.S. during the early 1970s, <br />the opinion of the State Engineer's Office crystalized to <br /> <br />-6- <br />