Sample Cross Examinations

In most car and truck accident cases, the key cross-examination in the case is the defendant’s expert witness. The at-fault driver’s cross-examination can also be critical in some cases even if there is not a liability dispute.

• Cross-Examination of Malpractice Defense Expert (transcript)
• Cross-Examination Outline of Malpractice Defense Expert (outline for the same expert whose transcript is provided above)
• Cross-Examination of ‘Independent’ Medical Examiner (IME)
• Cross-Examination of Diana Simpson
• Cross-Examination of Defendant Doctor

Crossing Defense Experts

Historically, our firm has focused on fully exploring expert bias in cross-examinations in auto tort cases. There is low-hanging fruit there. The typical auto tort case we take to trial involves an expert battle between our experts, who are usually the treating doctors, and the defense doctors who make an obscene living testifying for the same insurance companies over and over.

Financial Bias

To do an adequate financial bias cross-examination of an expert, you can no longer rely on the expert’s say, as to how much money the expert makes. They tend to have selective amnesia, they obfuscate the numbers, and sometimes they downright lie about how much money they are getting paid to do what is usually exclusively defense-oriented legal work. You need to have financial documents to figure out exactly how much money the expert makes testifying in legal cases and how much money they have received from the specific law firm or insurance company that is defending the case.

Elsewhere on this website, we take you on the exact path that we fight to get the expert’s financial records, which we use to cross-examine the witness in a deposition and at trial. We have gone to Maryland’s highest court to get our battle plan approved. Expert financial bias is low hanging fruit — you just need to put the time in to harvest it.

At our firm, we are obsessed with exposing expert bias on cross-examination because, in many of these cases, the defense doctor is not really acting like an independent physician at all. Too often, these witnesses are brazen and unashamed about serving as an extension of the defense team. Their real business is not medicine. It is litigation.

Defense experts rarely volunteer the truth about how much money they make testifying in lawsuits. When asked at deposition or trial, they usually minimize, deflect, or claim not to know. Some say they only occasionally do legal work. Others insist they are simply offering an objective medical opinion with no stake in the outcome. A few even claim they have no idea how much they earned from forensic work because their accountant handles all of it.

That is why you cannot rely on the expert’s word. You need the documents.

When you subpoena tax returns, 1099 forms, and billing records, the picture is often very different from the one the expert tried to present. The doctor who claimed to do only occasional legal work turns out to earn a substantial part of his income from defense firms and insurance carriers. The expert who portrayed himself as neutral has testified for the same defendants over and over and never for an injured plaintiff. The so-called file review that supposedly took hours produced a thin report and a very large invoice.

This is where cross-examination becomes powerful. Jurors understand that experts are hired. What they do not forgive is dishonesty. When you show that the expert minimized, concealed, or flatly misrepresented the financial relationship, credibility starts to collapse.

The key is to lock the expert into a story before revealing the documents. Let the witness say forensic work is only a small part of the practice. Let the witness deny any meaningful relationship with the defense firm or insurer. Then show the jury the 1099s and the payment history. The contrast does the work for you.

Even Bigger Than Financial Bias: Did Not Do the Work

Financial bias matters. Jurors understand that money can shape testimony, and they do not like experts who make a living pretending to be neutral while serving one side over and over again. But there is often an even more fertile ground for cross examination than bias alone: the expert did not do the work necessary to earn the opinion.

Jurors sometimes shrug off bias because they assume paid experts are just part of litigation. They may see it as a game and think that everyone knows how the game is played. What they are much less willing to excuse is laziness, shortcuts, or an opinion that was formed without the basic work that any careful professional should have done. If an expert admits that he did not review key records, ignored important testimony, failed to examine the plaintiff, overlooked imaging, skipped the relevant literature, or never considered obvious alternative explanations, the jury has a concrete reason to discount the opinion. That hits harder than bias because it is not just about motive. It is about competence and honesty.

That is where a strong cross examination can do real damage. The plaintiff’s lawyer has to figure out exactly what the expert failed to do before reaching the opinions offered to the jury. Did the expert review every relevant medical record, or just the records sent by defense counsel? Did the expert read the deposition transcripts, pathology, imaging, operative reports, and follow up treatment notes? Did the expert consider the treating doctors’ opinions, or simply ignore them? Did the expert perform any meaningful analysis, or just sign off on a conclusion that fit the defense theory? These omissions matter because they show that the opinion is not the product of careful professional judgment. It is the product of a shortcut.

This line of attack also works beautifully with a financial bias cross because the two themes reinforce each other. The jury begins to see not just a paid witness, but a paid witness who did not even do the basic work required to justify the opinion. That is a powerful combination. The message becomes simple and persuasive: this expert is being paid well, is siding with the defense, and still did not take the time to do the job the right way. Once the jury sees that, trust erodes quickly.

In many cases, this is the cross that matters most. A biased expert can still survive if the jury thinks the expert was careful and thorough. But an expert who took shortcuts, ignored inconvenient facts, and offered opinions without doing the necessary work is an expert the jury can safely reject. That is the goal of the cross examination: to show that the opinion is not just slanted, but undeserved.

 

One final thought on controlling the witness during cross-examination. Starting in moot court, law students are taught the key to controlling the witness. This advice is important. An expert will run over you if you do not maintain control of the testimony. But the idea of “control” does not mean trying to overtly dominate the witness in an aggressive way that turns off the jury and closes down the witness. The best lawyers can aggressively cross-examine a witness while still treating the witness respectfully and with control, with leading questions that do not project hostility.

Checklist for Expert Cross

These are some of the questions you should have on your outline: