Expert Testimony, Essay Example

The most surprising research is the article on “Principles in Persuasion: Beyond Characteristics of the Speaker” by Brad Bradshaw. Credibility is an important characteristic of the speaker and is defined as the quality of being believed in and trusted. Bradshaw (2012) claims that without credibility, in addition to trustworthiness, likeability, and expertise, there can be no persuasion. The amazing part of the article is that jurors can be influenced by how the message is framed, leaving out the aspect of credibility. Information attained from more reliable sources can be left out and replaced with information that creates a more lasting impression. In confirmation of the aforementioned, when two persons relate two interpretations of the same narrative, prosecutors may overlook the numbers offered and instead concentrate in the evidence integrating instances that allow defendants to draw their own inferences dependent on their opinions on the subject.

Monetary anchors are very influential to jurors since they influence their perceptions in numerical ways. During deliberations, jurors use anchors as their starting point of negotiations and present information in ways that allow jurors to critically reflect on the matter and make a firm decision. Appealing to the jurors’ emotions is important since they don’t care about a speaker’s characteristics but how the message is framed. Bradshaw (2012) adds that persuasion requires a willingness to accept an idea, influenced by what the individual already believes. If the emotions of one jury member are positively impacted, they can influence others and make a conclusive decision that will support your message. Again, by influencing the thoughts and emotions of jurors in a case, there is a great possibility that one might maintain power for an extended period.

Studying and understanding persuasion and credibility enables an expert to become more successful at persuading others. In order to become more successful in persuading others, an expert needs to have a working understanding of how persuasion functions. For example, Bradshaw (2012) claims that for persuasion to be effective, a consultant needs to go beyond their characteristics and focus on framing their messages since it plays a major role in how jurors react to the evidence. Most defendants fail in their cases since they solely rely on statistical evidence instead of strategizing their messages to appeal to the jurors’ emotions and thoughts. Therefore, if an expert understands how to frame a message, they will become great persuaders in any setting.

An expert needs to influence listeners to enable them to understand the message. Persuasion and credibility require a significant influence on listeners. Morris (2013) states that experts should combine common knowledge with specialized expertise in a particular field. In cases when the determination of standard of care is beyond the ordinary experience and knowledge on normal facts, expert testimony is required (Morris, 2013). The above statement means that experts must involve all the general components of credibility: competence, trustworthiness, and likability. Layers might easily fall into expert mode while addressing different cases, but they end up over-emphasizing the value of competence. In order to balance and equally utilize the components of credibility, the two concepts should be clearly understood.

Recently, jurors have changed their ways of handling different cases and information presented in courts. As a result, experts need to familiarize themselves with the new definitions of persuasion and credibility in jurors’ eyes. Adjudicators, for instance, consider technical skills, the competence to employ an identifiable technique, and the capacity to convey that technique and articulate the ensuing judgments when considering an analyst’s testifying. (Gabriel, 2009). By understanding the above review characteristics, an expert will be able to influence listeners and jurors.

References

Bradshaw, B. (2012). Principles in Persuasion: Beyond Characteristics of the Speaker. Jury Expert, 24, 5.

Gabriel, R. (2009). Redefining Credibility: Turning Expert Witnesses into Teachers. Jury Expert, 21, 85.

Morris, C. A. (2013). Beyond expert credentials: every aspect of credibility counts. Jury Expert, 25, 13.