When Crossing or Responding to Your Opposing Expert Witness, Look for the L.I.E. (Large Internal Error) By: Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm
Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, litigation consultant and jury selection expert, recently blogged at Litigation PostScript about a strategy known as the Large Internal Error or L.I.E. Dr. Broda-Bahm describes the L.I.E. as an effective shortcut for weakening the opposing expert’s credibility in an expert vs. expert case. He claims that if an expert can be shown to have made a significant error, the loss of authority for that expert can expand to include their entire testimony. The mistake should be:
- Large: Large enough to make the jurors question the source
- Internal: The error should be caused using the expert’s own techniques
- An Error: A “mistake, miscalculation, exaggeration, omission, or a bungle”
This strategy involves understanding how jurors process new information and make decisions. Dr. Broda-Bahm sites the “Elaboration Likelihood Model”, which explains the two routes people use when encountering new information. People use either the “peripheral route” which relies on “available but not necessarily reliable cues”, or the “central route” which is more thoughtful and requires people to “consider the implications, advantages, and disadvantages of your decision”. A major advantage of the L.I.E. is that it appeals to both thought processes.
To read the original article, click here: When Crossing or Responding to Your Opposing Expert Witness, Look for the L.I.E. (Large Internal Error) By: Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm
Ken Broda-Bahm, Ph.D. (Courtroom Insight Profile)
Senior Litigation Consultant at Persuasion Strategies
Ken Broda-Bahm has been an active litigation consultant for the past 15 years. He is experienced in assisting jury selection, preparing witnesses, designing and evaluating mock trial and focus group research as well as in evaluating the results of venire surveys and conducting post-trial juror interviews.