The Courtroom as a Classroom.

I'd like to elaborate a bit on how and why I believe it's useful think of the courtroom as a classroom.

The Expert Witness is a teacher.

In this "courtroom as classroom" analogy, the expert witness, such as a DRE, is the teacher. Good teachers, whether in an actual classroom or on the witness stand, share much in common. They are knowledgeable about their subject matters. At the same time, however, they don't claim to know everything. They'll also admit when they are wrong. Good teachers don't come across as arrogant. Rather, they may seem somewhat humble. They may even appear a bit nervous. After all, testifying in court is a form of public speaking. The good teacher is enthusiastic about his/her subject matter, and enjoys explaining the intricacies of the topic. The good teacher knows how to pronounce and spell the technical terms of his/her expertise. The good teacher explains rather than dictates, making the complicated seem somewhat simple. The good teacher in the courtroom also shows respect and a bit of deference to the others, even to the court reporter.

The Jury members are the students.

The expert witness teaches the jurors, the courtroom's "students." But unlike students in a college course, or a law enforcement course such as DRE, the courtroom's students didn't sign up for the course! They were ordered to put their work aside, their families, and their other interests to attend this "course." Furthermore, the students may be ordered not to talk about the "class," may not be allowed to "take notes," and may not even know how long the "class" will last! For all of this inconvenience, they receive a very small amount of compensation to cover some of the travel costs. We should be thankful that most members of our society take jury duty seriously. Likewise, we should never disparage a jury by remarking that they were "too stupid" to get off jury duty.

The best prosecutors ask questions from the jury's point of view.

In my experience, the best prosecutors ask questions that the members of the jury would like to ask. It's almost as if the jury members chose one person to ask questions on their behalf, a "designated juror." These prosecutors ask the expert witness to explain procedures, such as the SFST's. They ask the expert witness why they do certain procedures in a specified way. They also talk like a regular citizen, and avoid "copese." An example of a "copese" question is: "Subsequent to activating your overhead emergency lights, did you effect a traffic stop?"

The defense attorney tries to testify.

During the cross examination of an expert witness, such as a DRE, the defense attorney basically testifies, and asks the witness to agree or disagree. To do this, the defense attorney asks leading questions, that usually require a yes or no answer. A simple, but recurring, question that DRE's often encounter is "You're not a medical doctor, are you?" A simple question requiring a "yes" or "no." Defense attorneys also frequently start a question - again, an attempt to testify - by saying "It's fair to say..." I alert whenever I hear a question that starts with the "fair to say" phrase. Because almost always, it's NOT "fair to say." Usually it's a gross oversimplification of a complicated issue. And I have often answered, "No sir, it's not fair to say."

A couple guidelines:
Answer "Yes" or "No" if you can. Ask to "explain" if you must. But never answer "Yes, but..." The good defense attorney will stop you by thanking you for answering the question. Hopefully, the prosecutor will ask you to explain on redirect.

The judge is the referee.

The role of the judge is similar to the role of a sports referee. The judge makes sure that the rules of law are followed, that everyone gets a fair chance to present his/her version of the case, and that the proceeding stays on schedule.