Services

Attorney and Trial Expert Witness Courtroom Evidentiary Logical Reasoning Training

We train attorneys and trial expert witnesses how to reason better with evidence to be more successful in court. They learn a foolproof, universally applicable approach for constructing flawlessly logical, transparent, and understandable evidentiary arguments. Persuasively connecting the dots in court becomes easy. The inferential power of circumstantial evidence becomes apparent.

The reasoning approach uses embodied concrete conceptual metaphors that are well matched to the design structures, forces, and relationships in logical evidentiary arguments. In this manner, the attorney and expert witness no longer have a vague or an incomplete understanding about what does “an argument structure,” “argument well-formedness,” “probative relevancy,” “reaching a conclusion,” “an objection,” or “a line of reasoning” look like. They also acquire an embodied felt-sense of “probative weight or force,” “argument strength,” “degrees of certainty or acceptability,” or “inference steps” which lead to a master of logical evidentiary reasoning.

The system is called the DCIT Categorical Logic Evidentiary Argumentation Method (The Logic-Bridge). The approach has been peer-reviewed in Oxford Journals on Logic and Argumentation, successfully court tested for fifteen years in Oregon trial and appellate courts, taught in law schools in advanced logical evidentiary reasoning courses, certified for an Oregon State Bar CLE training, and used in State of Oregon Expert Witness training for twelve years.

Our teaching style uses an active learning pedagogy with deliberate practice, a clear taxonomy of learning outcomes, and argument visualization techniques. We are patient and respectful throughout our interactive teaching process.

Trial Expert Witness Report Evaluation

Our team provides a rigorous and robust analysis of trial expert witness reports using the L‖G Eight C’s Rubric Matrix™ of trial expert opinion effectiveness. Once we uncover areas of weakness, we provide suggested solutions. All feedback is objective and unbiased. Our focus is on making the report most effective in presentation. We never influence the actual opinion of the trial expert witness. Think of us as a specialized logical reasoning and persuasive communication editor. 

We work with any type of trial expert witness report such as engineers, economists, statisticians, business and property valuation experts, financial theorists, corporate strategic planners, and medical providers.

Credibility: This factor is number one. Any inkling of bias must be eliminated. The report must be reconcilable with previous testimony in other settings. All calculations must be proofed. All procedures and protocols must be aligned with professionally accepted practices in the domain at issue. All puffery must be removed. Speculation must be critically reviewed. Credentials must not be overstated.

Cogency: We review every single argument within the report to evaluate whether they are flawlessly logically, well-structured, and include all necessary relevant and reliable evidence. Any possible logical fallacies are disclosed. 

Completeness: All implicit supporting assumptions within an argument are made explicit for testing. And any claims or conclusions that are mere assertions that lack support are made apparent for further analysis.

Common Sense: All conclusions are tested against the broader world of empirical historical and current data and natural consequences for compatibility. Theory must always align with the real world.

Clarity: The report is examined through the lens of reader-focused. Understandability of the logical lines of reasoning is one critical goal. This goal is reached through various techniques. Logical connections are assessed for explicitness. Logical conclusions are made self-evident by using reader-familiar and intuitive modes of inference. Rhetorical persuasiveness is heightened through organization, transitions, appropriate readability score, and tight focus.

Consistency: The report is examined for any conflicting assertions or lines of reasoning. Any conflicts are brought to resolution through consultation.

Certainty: All expert opinions of level of probability or certainty are checked for reasonableness and justifiability. All places where uncertainty can hide are explored. Sensitivity analysis is used where appropriate.

Context: The report is examined for providing the proper context and background information for a grounding of the specific analysis. The judge or juror cannot properly follow a complex evidentiary argument without adequate context.

Trial Expert Witness Examination Preparation

We prepare trial expert witnesses for direct examination and rigorous cross-examination through role playing and other training exercises. The training and techniques are drawn from over thirty years of complex trial work that exclusively involved expert witnesses from various domains and fifteen years of Expert Witness Cross-Examination training on behalf of the Oregon Department of Justice. We focus on the L‖G eight trial expert witness principles:

Expert Identity vs. Expert Opinion: Trial experts often conflate their expert opinions with their personal identities. They can take attacks on their opinions as attacks on their personhood. This error can lead to defensive responses that hurt credibility. Learning to separate their expert opinion from their identity is a critical step.

Arrogance vs. Confidence: The trial expert’s demeanor has a powerful impact on the judge. Confidence is compelling. Arrogance is defeating. And treating all individuals with respect is essential.

Expert Mind vs. Beginner Mind: While the expert witness is a subject matter expert, the judge or juror is likely not. Explaining the processes and reasoning with a beginner’s mind focus will communicate most effectively with the judge or juror. The judge or juror will not be impressed by terminology and protocols that they cannot understand. A true expert can always translate their knowledge into understandable language.

Certitude vs. Reasonable Probability: An attitude of certitude is not persuasive since there almost always questions of doubt to be considered. When the trial expert witness demonstrates an open-mindedness, their testimony is more believable. Acknowledging places of uncertainty and newly discovered errors and providing reasonable explanations increases effectiveness.

Control vs Submission: Opposing counsel often tries to make the trial expert witness believe that there is a struggle for control in the examination process. If the trial expert witness falls into this illusion, they will lose. In actuality, the expert witness has significant control. They can control pacing and rhythm by the speed in which they respond. Where appropriate, they can ask for the question to be repeated or rephrased. And they can learn to rely on the rebuttal phase of examination where they will have the opportunity to explain their answers.

Advocate vs. Assistant: Understanding the trial expert witness’s role as helpful assistant to the judge rather than as an advocate for their client is critical. When the judge senses an expert witness party advocate, they lose credibility.

Speculation vs. Reasonable Inferences: Wild inference leaps and speculation produces weakly supported conclusions. The judge or juror is always looking for reasonable inferences that they can agree with. Also, avoiding long strings of inference-upon-inference must be avoided.

Opaque vs. Transparent Reasoning: When the logical connections in a line of reasoning are implicit or vague, the judge or juror will not be willing to follow the logical path you are guiding them on. The reasoning must be transparent to the judge or juror so they can easily follow every inference step without hesitation.

Evidentiary Argument Visualization Trial Exhibits

We prepare trial exhibit visualizations of evidentiary lines of reasoning (i.e., argument maps) to greatly improve the court’s understanding of how the attorney or expert witness has connected the dots for the court.

Argument visualization provides a visual depiction of an argument’s structure—the connections between the premises and conclusion. It can be an effective strategic analytical technique (SAT) to both develop your arguments and as an adjunct to communicate your logical reasoning with your written and oral prose. For example, would you rather have the written prose directions or would you prefer to also have a visual map to supplement the written directions to guide you to reach a destination in a large complex city?

We used argument visualization successfully in trial and appellate courts on behalf of the Oregon Department of Justice for fifteen years.