You are aware Rizwan that your early testimonies where you said that the defense attorney "made you look totally incompetent" should be recalled by a good attorney and used against you. The "it was very early in my career" honestly doesn't cut it. You are either ready to testify and win the case, or you are not ready and someone else should be sent in.
Most people don't consider what they have previously said on the stand, only the current time.
Although I have not testified in digital forensic cases, I have testified as expert witness and as an investigating detective in numerous other criminal cases and depositions. Call it fortunate, before every major criminal case, the prosecutor prepared me for the case. We went over the evidence, what questions he/she would ask, and my response. We also discussed what kind of questions to expect from the defense attorney and my response. A good defense attorney can make an investigator look totally incompetent. It happened to me a few times but I have learned from it. By the time the defense attorney was done I was beginning to doubt my own abilities. )
He messed with my head. (but in my defense, it was very early in my career). )
Two things I learned early on, are to maintain eye contact and do not volunteer information. Only answer what you are asked.
I think that your post is very spot on. The below questions though inevitably draw an "objection, leading"
It is tough to testify, and I don't think all these new examiners are thinking about how fatal it can be if they have a bad instance of testifying. I like the challenge of going up against someone else where our opinions differ, and we both have items to back it up. Very recently the Judge said that there were 2 good examiners on both sides and this is a really tough decision for him. That's about the best compliment you are gonna get from a Federal Judge.
As an example, if you're examining a computer for evidence of a theft of IP (and your findings indicate it happened) you might tell your attorney
1. Ask me what I examined.
2. Ask me whether there were indications of an external device connected.
3. Ask me whether there were indications that company documents were accessed from that device.
2. Keep in contact with the attorney (good side or bad side- which ever you side you are testifying for) and go over the case and ask, "What are the issues we are facing?"
You're not biased at all are ya…
One thing I love about the few officers I know who are excellent at their jobs, I mean a cut above 99% of the CF people out there, as well as the AUSA's, is that the good ones just want to find out who did the crime at hand.
They don't want to imprison a person who didn't do anything wrong, nor do they stop their investigation when they have charging evidence. They work on cases even if it means that they turn up exculpatory evidence which helps the other side.
You are aware Rizwan that your early testimonies where you said that the defense attorney "made you look totally incompetent" should be recalled by a good attorney and used against you. The "it was very early in my career" honestly doesn't cut it. You are either ready to testify and win the case, or you are not ready and someone else should be sent in.
Most people don't consider what they have previously said on the stand, only the current time.
I would venture to say that most veteran officers who have testified as the investigating officer early on in their career has at least one case they can point to where a solid defense attorney made them feel incompetent or shredded their investigation to pieces. Which is what I believe the poster was referring to. As long as he did not lie, it would have little to no affect on his CF expert testimony.
If you get made incompetent as an expert CF investigator…well, that's a whole different story; however, he stated he had never testified as an expert on a CF case.
2. Keep in contact with the attorney (good side or bad side- which ever you side you are testifying for) and go over the case and ask, "What are the issues we are facing?"
You're not biased at all are ya…
One thing I love about the few officers I know who are excellent at their jobs, I mean a cut above 99% of the CF people out there, as well as the AUSA's, is that the good ones just want to find out who did the crime at hand.
They don't want to imprison a person who didn't do anything wrong, nor do they stop their investigation when they have charging evidence. They work on cases even if it means that they turn up exculpatory evidence which helps the other side.
Way to spin that and go off topic.
Way to spin that and go off topic.
Would this other thread be considered "off topic" or "connected"?
http//www.forensicfocus.com/Forums/viewtopic/t=9275/
jaclaz
I have testified a number of times as an expert witness, but more often as a technical witness. The difference being whether or not I render an opinion on what my findings mean. In most cases I'm involved in attorneys ask me to serve as a technical witness.
The experience of testifying in court can be very nerve wracking. It's like public speaking where half your audience doesn't want to see you succeed. If fact they work against you. My best preparation for this was previous testimony in criminal cases ranging from speeding charges to murder cases. DUI cases really were the most challenging as a rule because they could get very technical and were challenged more aggressively than other cases. My military experience was helpful too, in that it taught me to stay calm in the face of someone who is trying to make me angry.
I try to remember to direct my answers to the judge, stay calm, and to think before answering. You don't have to memorize the report, nothing wrong with referring to your notes.
I think directed training would be invaluable. I often ask for feedback from attorney's after my testimony as that helps more than anything.
I try to remember to direct my answers to the judge, stay calm, and to think before answering. You don't have to memorize the report, nothing wrong with referring to your notes.
Not read all this thread as I dont have time - but why direct your answers at the judge? it is the jury who decide guilt? I look at the barrister when he is asking the questions and the jury when answering.
but why direct your answers at the judge? it is the jury who decide guilt? I look at the barrister when he is asking the questions and the jury when answering.
Because it is the Judge's Court and, in providing your responses to the Judge, you are demonstrating respect to the Court. I don't think there is any harm in engaging both Judge and jury in your responses but, in the main, I consider that the Judge should be an expert's default focal point. I perfectly agree that one does not have discourse with the barrister in any event.
In my experience, in US courts (military, or civil jury), the best approach for an expert witness is to address the decision maker, and almost all jury cases it is the jury.
Watch the better lawyers when crossing the expert from the other side. They walk to the other side of the court, away from the jury, so the untrained expert instinctively turns toward them, instead of the jury. You will see the perfect counter of that with the friendly side - s/he will stand right front or even behind to the side of the jury, so it looks as if the expert is looking at and talking to the jury.
but why direct your answers at the judge? it is the jury who decide guilt? I look at the barrister when he is asking the questions and the jury when answering.
Because it is the Judge's Court and, in providing your responses to the Judge, you are demonstrating respect to the Court. I don't think there is any harm in engaging both Judge and jury in your responses but, in the main, I consider that the Judge should be an expert's default focal point. I perfectly agree that one does not have discourse with the barrister in any event.