In 2016, a young woman who stood five feet tall and weighed barely a hundred pounds was set upon by three people who outweighed her. One of them appeared to have a gun in their pocket. She drew her own legally carried pistol to make them leave her alone, and when another of the opponents threatened to take the gun and kill her with it and started to lunge, she fired a single shot which stopped the attack.  She was criminally charged. Her attorney did not use expert testimony in her defense even though one such expert was available at no charge. She was convicted and has been behind bars for about six years. We are awaiting the results of her appellate hearing, in which I testified.

The general public – the jury pool – does not understand the well-established fact that disparity of physical force warrants the use of a deadly weapon against ostensibly unarmed attackers who are likely to overpower you and kill or cripple you. Sadly, some attorneys don’t understand it either.

When defense lawyers do understand, expert testimony can make a significant difference. Here’s a case where I testified earlier this year:

I’ve been an expert witness for the courts for 44 years now, and my colleague Marty Hayes for 33.  Marty explains the need for expert witnesses in self-defense cases clearly in this article, which recently appeared in Gun Digest magazine.

Many of you reading this could qualify as expert witnesses on these matters yourselves. And any of you might wind up being wrongly accused in criminal or civil court after even the most righteous act of self-defense.

14 COMMENTS

  1. Had to have been a blue city at least, and probably a blue state. I can’t imagine that conviction happening here in Texas, even in a blue city (except maybe Austin), but you never know. We all need to be educated on what to expect from an attorney in the event you’re charged and definitely get proper insurance. I carry the highest level of coverage with USCCA & I educate myself as much as possible on deadly force encounters for just such a scenario.

  2. Much of the hesitation comes from, and what is known in the IT world as, ‘imposter syndrome’. Young 20 and 30 somethings hold a job where they feel they don’t know what they know. They are high performers, but the fear being called out by their own conscience keeps nagging at them.

    I think the same is true in the gun world. Yes, we know the law, tactics, some ballistics, avoidance strategies, and what to do after an armed defense incident, but are we ‘good enough’ to fill the expert witness role or even teach others what they need to know to carry a firearm in public? I feel comfortable teaching new gun owners the basics, but I always strongly recommend professional training. By the same token, would I be good enough to offer credible expert evidence in a court of law? I’ve never been a cop, nor a lawyer, but I have taken hundreds of hours of training, and at least 80 hours from you, Mas, and continually practice drills and participate in local competitions. How does that make me an expert?

  3. So how do we get a “school” or “coursework” going to certify or qualify individuals so that they would be recognized by the court and given credibility by the jury pool? What materials are available for such witnesses to use?

  5. Oh so very true. I would think someone with just a touch of common sense would want all ammo at trial (no pun intended) to aid their cause. More is better. Just how could one of us layman become a expert witness?

  6. Mas, I suspect that many folks who could serve as an expert witness either want to avoid courts or lack confidence in their abilities or credentials. You might consider writing something about the needed education, credentials and/or experience to serve as an expert witness in a self-defense case.

    For example, I have served as an expert medical witness in the past; but, I always considered myself lacking in credentials to serve as an expert witness in a self-defense case, despite doing a lot of reading on the subject as a hobby–and more importantly, taking tutelage from you.

    Best Regards,

    • “How does one qualify as an expert witness?”

      Mas can correct me, IANAL, but I believe this is more a matter of judgment rather than hard and fast rules. Basically, a court will question a potential expert witness as part of a “voir dire” process. The questions, typically, involve the experience, education, and background pertaining to his/her expert qualifications. If the court finds the history and knowledge of the witness acceptable, then “bingo”, the court declares the witness to be an “expert” and qualified to give testimony.

      My only experience, in this process, was when I was subpoenaed as an expert witness in a civil trial. I was called because of my engineering background in highway bridge management. Basically, I was called as an expert bridge engineer. The judge just asked me a few questions as to my background and experience. Finding them acceptable, I was declared to be an expert in this area. Then the judge proceeded to question me over the issues that he had in mind about the case.

      Frankly, I think the judge’s mind was already settled, in this case, and my testimony simply acted to confirm his opinion. It was all over fairly quickly. I spent a lot more time, driving to get to the court and waiting around to be called as a witness, than it took to testify. 🙂

      Quote of the Day:

      “If the dog eats it, then it’s dog food!” – Col. Jeff Cooper (from his article “Ballistic Wampum”)

  8. Seems that the place to start is law schools. I forget whether it was you or Andrew Branca who wrote that most defense lawyers had never defended a person who was actually innocent. With the rise in the number of both armed citizens and leftist prosecutors we are going to get more of these unmeritorious prosecution cases. So teaching baby lawyers some of the basics so they would at least know they needed expert witnesses. Then attempts could be made to supply the demand.

  9. Expert witnesses will do no good against judges and prosecutors who don’t want citizens defending themselves with guns. Look at this case. A small woman fired ONE SHOT against three male attackers. There is no need to point out the disparity of force here. It is obvious.

    The prosecutor, judge, and jury were going to teach this woman to be a good victim, and use her case to warn all who would defend themselves like she did.

    Look at the judges who allow charges to be brought against Trump and Giuliani. Look at the judges putting January 6th rioters away for years, and delaying trials for those held in jail. They are on a mission to use the legal system against their political enemies.

    American education tries to make people smart. Smart people are clever at getting what they want, by any means necessary. We don’t need smart people, we need good people.

  10. How one becomes “qualified” needs a bit of clarification. Recalling (hopefully correctly) comments Marty Hayes made in discussing a case he’d been involved with, the court accepted him as a qualified expert based upon his experience. I’d guess a CV with your training and experience would be a good basis but whither goest one from there?

  11. IMHO: The three thugs vs. one little woman would make a good subject for a documentary on Netflix. Plenty of room there right now. Reminds me oddly of Goldilocks & the Three Bears. The prosecuting attorney, the judge, & the jury, if there was one, are all of prima facie questionable common sense. A history lesson on the role of the .45 Colt PEACEMAKER in making the odds in showdowns more even might be in order. I wonder what in the world would make anybody think that the woman was likely to shoot somebody without reason. She was apparently in reasonable fear of harm, & no reason seems to have obtained to compel her to offer herself up to threat of assault or unwarranted, felonious disarming. Evidently a clean shoot, & at close range. Free her, & give her an Annie Oakley Award!

  13. A couple of quick points:

    First, Mas offers an excellent course titled “Deadly Force Instructor.” I’ve graduated from the course and can testify that the training is top-notch. It goes into depth on most of the topics related to deadly force and the typical misrepresentation of facts that lawyers can use against those of us who carry.

    Law school is good, but it’s not necessary. In fact, there were several lawyers and a retired judge present in the class with me. They all testified that what they learned about self-defense law encompassed less than a day of their three years of law school. Self-defense is a specialty field with so many potential issues, it takes a specialty class like this one to expose you to what you need to know. Even then, the class is just a starting point. I went through the class in 2022, and I’m still exploring the topics presented to gain more knowledge. It’s my hope to be qualified one day soon. I agree with some posts that much of it is a self-confidence issue. Believe me, I get that. I’m there.

    I would also recommend Andrew Branca’s Law of Self-Defense courses. (Incidentally, I’m echoing Mas in this recommendation). Branca’s courses are excellent and mesh neatly with Mas’s instruction if you want to learn self-defense law.

    Last, You can take all of the classes you’d like. Those help. But being accepted as an expert witness depends on what knowledge you’ve retained AND how well you can bring that knowledge to bear when it’s applicable. It’s also about having the verbal skills to present the knowledge in an easy-to-understand fashion that juries, judges, and attorneys will accept.

Comments are closed.