Like a software applications expert witness, I'm needed to evaluate a large range of different software technologies. Throughout my depositing or trial testimony, the opposing expert may direct questions specific at subjecting or revealing my weak points. There's virtually no time for research or education.

Considering that I can not be a specialist in each and every technology, do you know the most versatile and transferrable abilities or technologies I ought to learn?

I'll begin with the apparent:

  1. Databases are all pervading (but what are best archetypes?)
  2. C is frequently involved because of the prevalence of older Home windows and DOS based systems

What ought to be added this list?

I might be mis-reading through your question, however i suspect that so if you are known as upon being an expert witness, you have the expertise they're seeking I guess that learning more technical facets of any technology will make you more prone to become a specialist witness, but ultimately I would suggest the very best skill could be of reliability. If you do not know, let them know. Any unknown questions may then end up being the "to become analyzed" list for later review.

just my 2 cents ...

It might be silly to phone you being an expert witness if you fail to be a specialist within the type of questioning.

Software applications expert witnesses have to in addition have a good knowledge of networking technology and have the ability to explain it to some jury or judge. Because a lot of software programs are client/server based, having the ability to explain the way in which fire walls, ip, http, internet hubs works and the reason why you will easily notice that particular programs were certainly used at certain occasions and locations is essential.

Understanding server os's and also the log files they generate can also be useful.

Well, the large factor about as being a witness is to hear the counsel that you are testifying. Within the computer world, your credibility isn't easily impugned. When they were to try and achieve this, it might be by calling into question formal education or training as inadequate to become a specialist. They will not be suggesting that you explain exactly what a Turing Machine is, or crafting a sorting formula in LISP, unless of course it's directly highly relevant to the problem at hands. They will not be playing "Gotcha!" with difficult technical questions, because it will not resonate using the judge/jury .The number of jury people are you able to picture saying this: "It's surprising that "expert" does not understand database normalization! exactly what a fraud!"? When the jury does not comprehend the question, they will not comprehend the answer. Any first year law student will explain about this issue (it pops up it a myriad of expert testimony situations).

No, your credibility is going to be asked in laymen's terms. So if you are requested to testify, it is because you will find the solutions which are relevant. Stay with individuals and do not inflict methods (as the counsel will explain), and you will be fine. In case your details are correct, as well as your degree/experience is solid, you might not be also mix-examined (they'll just find their very own expert to express the alternative of the items you stated).