There are occasional moments of humor in the life of a software expert witness. Here’s part of a fact witness deposition transcript:
(For the Google: Are you being compensated in any way in connection with this lawsuit? No. Are you being paid to be here today? Yes.)
I guess the direct specific question is sometimes better than the broad general question.
I disagree. This line of questioning makes the expert look dishonest.
Lawyer: “Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Did you check for blood pressure?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Did you check for breathing?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “How can you be so sure, Doctor?”
Witness: “Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.”
Lawyer: “But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?”
Witness: “Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.”
Despite the immense wealth & glamour, being a software expert witness sounds incredibly boring. You’re not inventing or creating anything new, but overhauling what other people created in search of defects to stir up strife.
Johnny Dangerously had this covered in 1984 except it was a joke in a movie then. I think the bell curve is on a sliding scale now.
https://youtu.be/Txa8XHq3N-8