The Doctor was less than truthful. I needed to show that to the jury. I needed to expose that he ONLY testified for doctors and hospitals. By exposing this doctors' bias, the jury would see that he was one-sided and not to be trusted.

It was a medical malpractice trial.

The defense brought in a medical expert to testify on their behalf.

The defense claimed their doctor did nothing wrong.

The defense claimed their doctor's actions did not contribute to any injury.

The defense argued that my client's injuries were really not as bad as we made them out to be.

The defense attorney spent a great deal of time having his expert explain to the jury why the doctor he represented did nothing wrong here.

Then it was my turn.

It was my turn to stand and question the defense's medical expert.

This was cross examination.

This is the drama that everyone waits for.

This is the drama that appears in many TV shows and movies.

Cross-examination tends to be the culmination and focal point of every trial scenario.

Every trial lawyer fantasizes that his cross examination will turn the witness into quivering Jell-O who breaks down on the witness stand and confesses everything.

Movies and TV shows foster this type of drama.

The reality is that it doesn't work that way.

Although cross examination is a search for the truth, witnesses rarely break down on the witness stand.

Witnesses rarely turn into quivering and blubbering Jell-O when cross-examined.

Opposing witnesses rarely concede and acknowledge that everything they just said was totally wrong and the opposing attorney is totally right.

However, there are many key strategies that attorneys can use to show that an opposing witness is being less than truthful.

Their are different strategies and tactics to expose a witness's bias and prejudice.

There are different cross-examination strategies that help the jury understand that this witness is not to be believed.

In this particular medical malpractice case I wanted to show the jury that this medical expert NEVER reviewed cases on behalf of an injured victim.

Never in his career did he review or testify on behalf of an injured patient.

I wanted to expose this fact to the jury to show them that this doctor was biased.

During his long career, he only sought to help doctors and hospitals who were sued.

To learn even more, I encourage you to watch the quick video below...