• Avoiding the “hired gun” label – Witnesses who have testified dozens of times can easily be painted as “hired guns” who will say anything the attorney pays them to, especially if a large percentage of their witness work is for only one side.  New witnesses don’t have this baggage, and jurors may be more likely to think they’re testifying because they truly believe in the case rather than just because it pays well to say so. 
• Not a “professional” witness – We’ve seen expert nursing witnesses who haven’t worked at a hospital in 20 years, and retired doctors who supplement their retirement income with witness work.  It is easy to attack the credibility and freshness of these witnesses’ knowledge, especially when compared with those who are still working “in the trenches.”  We’ve found jurors often respond better to witnesses who are still actively involved in their primary careers and have testified seldom or not at all, even if they don’t have the paper credentials that come with long careers in academia or administration.
• Less polished can be more earnest – Numerous jurors have told us after trials that they found experienced, star witnesses “too slick” and therefore not as credible.  Inexperienced witnesses may not be as polished as old hands, but this lack of polish may make the witness seem more earnest and believable.  Jurors understand these people are experts because of their experience and knowledge, not their slick presentation skills.
• Can’t be pinned down as easily – Like politicians, experts with a long track record leave an extensive paper trial for the opposition to pick apart and look for things that contradict their testimony.  This is especially true for academics who have published dozens of papers and conference presentations over the years.  Younger experts without that same history are more of a blank slate, and are less likely to get tripped up by things they’ve written or said in the past.
• Younger can be better – It’s a fact of life that some in our society harbor a bias against older people.  This may cause jurors to view younger witnesses as more “cutting edge” and well informed than those heading for the twilight of their careers. 

Of course, it’s necessary to be judicious when considering an inexperienced expert witness, and you’ve got to be comfortable with their qualifications, knowledge base and ability to communicate.  We also recommend prepping these witnesses thoroughly prior to deposition and trial so they won’t be surprised by tricky tactics they’ve never encountered.  But if you choose wisely and put in the work, we believe a rookie expert can lend your case an authenticity a more experienced witness may lack.