39. Guidelines for testifying in a legal proceeding?
Most people who undergo witness preparation training are novice witnesses who have little or no experience testifying. Sometimes, these witnesses know little about the nature and process of courtroom testimony, such as where they will sit in the courtroom, who will ask them questions, and what the questions will be like. These circumstances often contribute to feelings of anxiety and fear in novice witnesses. Research suggests that one way to reduce witnesses' feelings of anxiety about testifying is to educate them about the testimony process by having them participate in a testimony simulation. A testimony simulation can also be thought of as a testimony rehearsal or a dry run (Berger, 2002). In a testimony simulation, the witness responds to the types of direct and cross-examination questioning that their attorney expects them to experience in the courtroom. Ideally, the direct examination questioning in the testimony simulation is conducted by the attorney who will question the witness in court, while an unfamiliar attorney conducts the cross-examination testimony.
Although many witnesses are apprehensive about testifying and unsure about how well they will be able to testify, some witnesses are extremely eager to testify and overly confident about how likely jurors are to believe their testimony. In these instances, witness education can be used to induce a realistic amount of anxiety in the witness (Berger, 2002). For example, some criminal defendants want to testify in their defense because they feel that they can simply explain or argue away all the evidence that the prosecution has amassed against them. These defendants see testimony as an opportunity to tell their story, the way they see it, and tend to argue and become defensive in response to challenging cross-examination questions. Testimony simulations can be used with overconfident witnesses to provide a realistic example of what it is like to be cross-examined and to show them that their “I'm right, you're wrong” approach to testifying is not likely to be persuasive in the courtroom (Berger, 2002).
After a tradition of legal rules that restricted testimony by expert witnesses, Supreme Court decisions in the last decade of the twentieth century made such information more available. However, debate among scholars shows no agreement on the benefits and risks of the changed rules. The primary risk involves flooding courts with testimony based upon biased opinions rather than scientific knowledge (Foster and Huber, 1999). Evidence shows that biased and unreliable testimony can be found readily among both prosecution and defense experts. Several suggested changes may help control these biases. One alternative is for courts to hire independent experts who have exemplary records of following appropriate scientific procedures and ethical ...