Testifying in Court: Guidelines and Maxims for the Expert Witness

This latest book from forensic psychologist Stanley Brodsky, like its first edition in 1991, is a gem. Entertaining, empowering, and erudite, Testifying in Court: Guidelines and Maxims for the Expert Witness is directed at forensic psychologists, although it applies to all expert witnesses, from the novice to the experienced, who face the “dreadful and wonderful experiences on the witness stand” (p 4). The 55 chapters, ranging in length from three to seven pages, are arranged alphabetically in an acrostic structure, each ending with a maxim that is witty, obvious, or counterintuitive. The content has been gleaned from the author's expert witness workshops, research, and laboratory contributions.

Although much has been copied or only minimally updated from the first edition, there are significant revisions and additions, as well as omissions, in this second edition. For example, the chapter on Child Sexual Abuse Testimony includes updated material, and the previous discussion of anatomic dolls has been removed. New maxims cover Knowing When to Fold Them (withdrawing from a case), Malingering and Faking Bad, Moving On, Narcissistic Experts, Negative Assertions, Perspective Taking, Pull to Affiliate and Allegiance Effects, Qualifications and Expertise, Report Matters, Socialization During Trial, Staying Current, Theatrical and Outlandish Attorneys, Worst Testifying Experience, and Your Expertise Used Against You.

Gone are chapters on Elder Abuse and Neglect, Employment Discrimination, Fishing Expeditions, Limits of Expertise, Orientation to the Courtroom, Primary Source Gambit, Scientific Challenges, Star Witness, Termination of Parental Rights, and While Lawyers Fuss.

A sample of the more witty maxims: “After a disaster during testimony, correct the error as soon as you can. If you cannot, let it go” (p 61). “A few people are just not cut out for testifying in court. They should move on” (p 130). “Neither socialize nor discuss any aspect of the case with opposing counsel, with other witnesses, and especially not with jurors” (p 189). The obvious: “Challenges to professional experience should be met with knowledge of the literature and affirmations of the worth of your findings” (p 23). “When you truly do not know, say so. Don't waffle” (p 186). The counterintuitive: “Always have in reserve slow and quiet replies and proper manners, and if the opportunity arises, clinical reflections” (p 103). “When the time is right to disagree with cross-examination questions, do so with strength, clarity and conviction” (p 136). “When the cross-examination question is true but asked in a pushy and negative manner, consider agreeing strongly” (p 169).

There is an up-to-date composite reference list that even includes the latest edition in the Ziskin and Faust series¹ and a useful index. Readers are invited to share their testifying experiences directly with the author by e-mail, perhaps with a third edition in mind.

• © 2015 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law