Litigation: Top strategies for handling witness testimony
Putting any witness for the company on the stand involves rigorous and extensive preparation. In-house counsel are essential to this process.
March 06, 2014 at 03:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
One skill that is absolutely essential for any good trial lawyer is the ability to work well with witnesses on both sides of the dispute. Witness testimony, and how the jury perceives it, can make or break a case.
In-house counsel have a significant role to play when it comes to witness testimony. They often have the best and most direct access to both company witnesses and any experts who may also be called upon to testify in the case. In-house counsel also generally take a significant role in choosing witnesses, though the trial lawyers they hire should have input as to whether or not a particular witness will help or hinder the case.
Putting any witness for the company on the stand involves rigorous and extensive preparation. In-house counsel are essential to this process. Trial lawyers rely on in-house counsel to make witnesses available for preparation and to ensure that enough time is spent with each witness. Not having enough access to company witnesses can hamper a trial lawyer's ability to put on the best case possible for the client.
One trial strategy is to have company witnesses reveal and address all possible weaknesses and problems for the case in their testimony. This may seem like a counterintuitive approach, because it seemingly exposes the company to attack from the other side. The reflex response would be to protect this information at all costs during trial, hoping the other side will not bring it up.
That is exactly the reason, however, that weaknesses and problems should be addressed directly in witness testimony. There are two reasons for this. First, juries look more favorably on corporate defendants when witnesses speak candidly and plainly about the circumstances that gave rise to the lawsuit. By dealing with any potential issues up front, witnesses build trust with the jury. The second reason is that a trust bond with a jury is a fragile thing and can be easily broken. If company witnesses hide a weakness that is then exposed by opposing counsel, juries may well regard any information given to them by those witnesses as suspect. Only by being open and honest can a company's trial lawyer ensure jurors will trust what they are being told.
Trust is also the main focus when a trial lawyer cross-examines opposing witnesses. In this case, the trial lawyer's job is to create doubt in the minds of jurors as to the trustworthiness of the other side. If opposing witnesses hide significant information, it's the trial lawyer's job to make sure the jury knows about it. For factual witnesses, this can involve questioning their memory of events or surfacing any possible biases that might be influencing their testimony. For expert witnesses, it's about drilling down beyond the technical jargon and exposing any errors in the evidence given, or making known a predisposition to support the other side's interests because it's how the witness makes a living.
Witness testimony is crucial to any trial. Whether or not those witnesses win the trust of a jury will make or break a case. Through careful preparation that focuses on providing honest and open testimony, trial lawyers and in-house counsel can increase the likelihood that a jury will side with them when handing down a verdict.
Disclaimer: This is for general information and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular matter. It is not intended to and does not create any attorney-client relationship. The opinions expressed and any legal positions asserted in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Miles & Stockbridge P.C., its other lawyers, or InsideCounsel.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250