In this episode of Cross Lab, hosts Steve Hohman and Olivia Espinosa are joined by plaintiff’s attorney Federico Lathrop and estate and trust attorney Mike Hackard.

Watch as they cross-examine Steve, who plays an occupational consultant and defense expert witness. They’ll challenge his opinion on the employability of the plaintiff, whose medical assessments reveal severe limitations that impact his ability to work.

Instagram:

@hackard_law

@fedelawyer

What’s covered in this episode:

1. How to balance expectations and earn trust with emotionally charged clients
2. The double edge sword of multi-fact questions
3. Questions that expose biases—no matter what the witness answers
4. What successful lawyers you love have in common
5. Why the word “AND” is the invitation you want to give to your jury

Time Stamps

00:00 What’s Cross Lab?

11:11 Balancing trust and expectations with clients experiencing trauma and grief

19:42 Mock Case Overview: Grayson vs. NextGen and Samuel Dent

21:55 Federico’s Cross: Exposing biases—no matter what the witness answers

40:14 What looping aka repeating your witness’s words does to an expert

45:09 The power (and danger) of stacking multiple facts into one question

49:28 The common traits successful lawyers have

53:12 Mike Cross: Word selection that paints a picture

1:11:48 The magic of "AND" for your jury

1:13:12 Top takeaways if you had to cross a witness like this

To get free resources for your next trial go to TrialHaus.com

Key Insights from This Episode

How to Expose a Defense Expert's Financial Bias Using Their Own Testimony History

Federico Lathrop opened his cross of occupational consultant James Tuft by establishing a single, devastating number: of approximately 118 cases in which Tuft had testified as an expert, 107 were for the defense. That's 95% of his career spent being paid by insurance companies, employers, and defense firms. Tuft tried to deflect — "my findings are completely separate from who's hiring me" — but Federico didn't argue. He simply looped Tuft's own words back: "Although you give the same service regardless of who retains you, throughout your career, 95% of the time you have been testifying as an expert for the defense." The witness had no factual ground to fight on.

What made this sequence effective wasn't aggression — it was math. Federico didn't accuse Tuft of being biased. He laid out the numbers and let the jury do the arithmetic. By the time he asked whether Tuft's livelihood depended on defense firms continuing to hire him, the conclusion was already obvious to anyone listening. The witness denied it, but the denial only made him look defensive. This is a foundational chapter that any plaintiff's attorney can adapt: establish the ratio, let the expert claim independence, and then let the numbers speak louder than the claim.

How to Build a "Proper vs. Biased Evaluation" Framework to Cross-Examine Any Expert Witness

One of Federico Lathrop's most effective structural choices was building a framework before ever touching the expert's actual report. He walked James Tuft through agreeing that a proper case evaluation must be objective, then impartial, then complete — stacking each term one at a time so the trilogy stuck. Then he defined the opposite: a biased evaluation is one where a paid expert cherry-picks information supporting their desired opinion while ignoring contradicting evidence. Tuft agreed to every definition because each one, in isolation, was unobjectionable.

The power of this approach is that the attorney never has to accuse the expert of anything. The framework does the work. Once the jury has heard "objective, impartial, and complete" repeated multiple times — and has heard the expert agree that violating those standards risks misleading the jury about the plaintiff's true condition — every subsequent flaw in the report is measured against a standard the expert himself endorsed. Federico noted afterward that his next chapters would have walked through specific flaws in the report, and each one would have landed against the framework he'd already built. The jury doesn't need the attorney to argue bias. They just need the framework and the facts.

How to Dismantle an Expert's Credentials by Exposing What They Didn't Do

Michael Hackard's cross took a different approach from Federico's — where Federico built the bias framework, Hackard systematically cataloged everything the expert failed to do. Tuft never physically examined the plaintiff. Never met him. Never tested his actual capabilities. Never observed him trying to work. Never consulted the California Workforce Development Agency. Never spoke with local job placement specialists. Never interviewed California employers. His entire analysis was, as Hackard distilled it, "based upon paper review." Each fact was delivered as a short, one-fact question — and each one landed a quiet but cumulative blow.

What made Hackard's approach devastating was its simplicity. He didn't argue that Tuft was incompetent. He just listed what Tuft didn't do, one item at a time, and let the accumulation speak for itself. Olivia Espinosa described it during the debrief as "the executioner slowly walking him to his demise." Federico Lathrop noted that the power came from simplicity — short questions, straight to the point, building a narrative that was easy to follow. For any attorney facing an expert witness, this is a replicable pattern: establish what a thorough evaluation requires, then walk through every step the expert skipped.

How to Use Looping in Cross-Examination to Make a Witness Pay for Their Own Words

Both attorneys in this episode demonstrated the technique of looping — taking a witness's own words and weaving them back into subsequent questions — but each used it differently. Federico caught Tuft saying "that number sounds right to you" and immediately repeated it back as a confirmed fact. He caught "same services regardless" and connected it to the 95% defense testimony rate. Each loop tightened the narrative without introducing new language the witness could resist.

Hackard looped Tuft's phrase "thorough and accurate" into a devastating sequence: you said your analysis was thorough and accurate, and yet you failed to speak with local specialists, failed to consult the Workforce Development Agency, failed to analyze the actual job market for someone with this plaintiff's specific limitations. Steve noted during the debrief that the moment certain words left his mouth as the witness, he knew they were coming back at him — and that awareness made him feel "squirrely," more guarded, more likely to over-explain. That's the dual function of looping: it holds the witness accountable to their own language while signaling to the jury that the attorney is listening to every word.

Why Using "And" Instead of "But" Strengthens Cross-Examination Questions

A subtle but significant coaching point emerged during the debrief when Olivia Espinosa flagged Hackard's use of the word "but" in several questions and suggested replacing it with "and." The difference matters more than it sounds. When an attorney says "you said your evaluation was thorough, but you never examined the plaintiff," the word "but" inserts the attorney's opinion — it signals that the attorney is arguing. When the same question uses "and" — "you said your evaluation was thorough, and you never examined the plaintiff" — it simply places two facts side by side and invites the jury to resolve the contradiction themselves.

Steve confirmed from the witness chair that this distinction is felt, not just heard. A "but" triggers defensiveness because the witness senses an argument coming. An "and" feels more neutral, more factual — and paradoxically makes the contradiction land harder because the jury reaches the conclusion independently rather than having it pushed on them. Federico committed on the spot to practicing this substitution in everyday conversation so it becomes reflexive at trial. It's a small change in language that produces a measurable shift in how a fact-finder processes the information.

How an Expert Witness's Volunteered Words Can Become Closing Argument Ammunition

One of the most instructive moments came when Federico Lathrop spotted something Hackard missed during his cross. When pressed about relying on paper records, Tuft said he was "assuming" the medical records were accurate. Federico pointed out afterward that "assume" was a loaded word the attorney could have looped into a devastating chapter — what else did you assume? You assumed the records were accurate. You assumed the job market conditions. You assumed the plaintiff's capabilities without ever meeting him. The word opened a door to reframe the entire evaluation as assumption-based rather than evidence-based.

This is the kind of real-time opportunity that separates good cross-examiners from great ones. Steve confirmed from the witness chair that the moment the word "assuming" came out, he knew it was dangerous — he just hoped the attorney wouldn't catch it. Olivia noted it could have become a trilogy on its own: you assumed the records, you assumed the market, you assumed the capabilities. The broader lesson for trial attorneys is that expert witnesses, especially those who volunteer explanations, will hand you language that's more powerful than anything you could have scripted — if you're listening for it.