This is the archived version of the seminar that took place on October 15, 2010.
Please take note: Once you purchase this online program your record will say you have 48 hours to complete. The NHBA staff will change that to seven (7) days once your purchase has been completed. Please call the Bar Association if this extension does not appear within 48 hours. Thank You.
If you attended last year’s “Killer Depos” program you will want to see this program!
This seminar presents the one right, logical method with which to effectively attack the adverse expert`s opinion at deposition ... no matter the area of law, no matter the field of expertise. As never before, this seminar brilliantly elucidates that logical method and teaches the archetypal set of integrated questions that are at the heart of every great adverse expert deposition ... and every trial cross-examination.
Original Program Schedule
• World-class expert introduced. (30+ clips of trial testimony)
• Overview: deposition logic applied to experts.
• When attacks vs. expert should be played at deposition.
• Cross-examiner’s problems
• Expert’s pedestal & expert’s problems
• The structure of every opinion: O = R + 2F
• End point opinions, subordinate opinions, and bedrock findings & assumptions
• Critical listening skills (a quick test)
10:00–10:10 a.m. Break
• The schematic every-case-forever chart introduced
• Five categories of expert opinions.
• Two must-be-asked questions.
• Ten types of expert rules.
• X and Y factors defined.
• Scientific vs. experiential rules (science vs. art).
11:20–11:30 a.m. Break
11:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m.
• Non-expert rules and the cloak of expertise.
• Expert’s rule’s essential factors (“necessary” and “sufficient”).
• Expert’s weighing process.
• Critical listening skills (2nd quick test).
• Two incredibly important–and easy to master– techniques
12:30–1:30 p.m. Lunch
• Attacks vs. expert’s X factors.
• The certainty scale and two archetypal arguments.
• Six sources of assumptions.
• Attacking expert’s findings derived through expert methods.
• Attacking expert’s findings derived through nonexpert methods.
• Expert’s self-anointed pedestal-status (3rd quick test)
2:50–3:00 p.m. Break
• Expert’s three–and only three–attacks vs. Y factors.
• Numerical hypothetical questions (bright line test vs. subjective grey).
• Freud vs. Frasier (expert’s psychological insights).
• Occam’s Razor. (the law of parsimony)
• Musaccam’s Razor and the weak links in expert’s opinion.
• Attacking expert’s double standard re career.
• Attacking expert’s double standard re case.
• Coda: Don’t squander the deposition of opposing expert
4:30 p.m. Adjourn
What Other Attorneys Had to Say...
Eye-opening; logical. Best I have taken. —Stephen Joncus, Klarquist Sparkman
A+ for practical content. A+ for instructor. Vastly superior to others… no comparison. —Lee Nusich, Lane Powell
Entertaining, fast-paced, thought provoking. Very practical. —Christopher D. Moore, Malagon Moore & Jensen
Highly useful content for my criminal defense trial work. Musante is an A+. —Mark Smolak
First rate! Musante is thorough and animated. Every little bit helps, and the “bits” were major, not trivial.
—Bruce Rubin, Miller Nash
Extremely provocative. Very practical. It will dramatically improve the quality of my adverse depositions if I follow up on the study and preparation. —Charles Duncan, Ray Bradley Law Offices