Training on how to be an expert witness is lacking.

In my experience good lawyers will humble themselves and discuss the case with the expert, and discuss the areas they need to cover.

Previous history does come into play. This is why this site is so dangerous. A busy paralegal can dig up all these posts and bring it to court - and your and my opinions would come into (court) play.

I vehemently disagree that I as a forensic science expert can win. I do not win. I simply state facts and possibly draw highly educated, high probability conclusions.

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.

I should have said the Judge or jury. The vast majority of cases I'm involved in are bench trials.

https://vts.inxpo.com/scripts/Server.nxp

I don't know anything about this training, but I thought I would pass along the link.

https://vts.inxpo.com/scripts/Server.nxp

Login credentials please?

You said it not me.

I name the two sides by whatever they are called. Prosecutor - Defendant AUSA - Defendant Plaintiff - Defendant you say Good or bad side.

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.