Your friend recently attended a local mail fraud trial. In your conversation about the case, she described the cross-examination of the expert witness as follows:
After his counsel’s questioning was done, expert witness Matthew Little was composed and gave off a confident impression. However, when the defendant’s counsel questioned him regarding a comment he made earlier, he began to argue with the questioning attorney. The attorney continued to reiterate that the testimony that he gave contradicted the events of the fraud; Matthew seemed to lose his temper. It was then that Matthew seemed exhausted and asked the judge for a quick recess. After the quick break, Matthew regained his composure and did not seem affected by the opposing counsel’s efforts to discredit his testimony. I was a little surprised that he refused to answer some questions, but he said something about it not being his area of expertise. I was impressed with his detailed explanations of the intricacies of mail fraud—he would never answer a question with a simple “yes” or “no”. Other than the brief moment before the break,
I thought he did a great job as an expert witness. Having read this chapter’s “dos and don’ts” of an expert witness and listening to your friend’s description, answer the following questions:
1. What did the expert witness do well?
2. What did the expert witness not do so well?