How to survive and control
cross-examination.
After the report, before the deposition. ForensicPrep finds the vulnerabilities in your methodology, your conclusions, and your testimony before opposing counsel does.
Built by a forensic psychologist who has been cross-examined. Not a generic simulation.
14 days free. No credit card required.
$29/month after trial · 20 sessions included · Cancel anytime
Or Testimony Prep Access from $12 · No subscription required
ForensicPrep was built by a practitioner who has testified. The scoring model, trap taxonomy, and case law integration reflect actual testimony dynamics. Not a simulation of what depositions sound like: a reconstruction of how they actually unfold.
Without adversarial testing, these are the risks you carry into the room.
Opposing counsel finds the weakness in your test selection, scoring interpretation, or norming population before you have a chance to articulate why your approach is defensible.
You stated something with more certainty than your methodology supports. Under cross, that gap between what you tested and what you concluded becomes the entire line of questioning.
A well-constructed question sequence builds small agreements into a conclusion you never intended to endorse. By the time you see the trap, it's on the record.
One poorly contained answer does not just affect that question. It reframes every opinion you offered. The jury does not forget the moment the expert looked uncertain about their own work.
ForensicPrep is where these get caught. Not in the courtroom. Here.
Three questions. One concession.
This is what it feels like.
"Doctor, you administered the MMPI-3 as part of this evaluation, correct?"
Foundation. Simple confirmation. Nothing to contest.
"That is correct. The MMPI-3 was one of several instruments in the test battery."
You confirmed the fact. The commitment is now locked.
"And you are aware that the MMPI-3 normative sample was collected from the general community population, not from individuals involved in active litigation?"
Escalation. Turns your instrument choice into a methodology question.
"The MMPI-3 normative sample is the validated reference for the instrument. It is the standard administration."
Deflection. But the gap is now on the record and the jury heard the premise.
"So you are asking this jury to accept a personality assessment of someone in active litigation, with a financial stake in the outcome, based on norms developed from people with no such incentive. Is that your testimony?"
The concession the jury remembers. Your methodology gap is now the narrative.
ForensicPrep shows you this sequence before it happens. Report Prep identifies the methodology gap. The simulator lets you practice your response until it holds.
If your report hasn't been tested like this, it hasn't been tested.
This is what opposing counsel
sounds like
Not feedback.
A real score.
Seven phase-adjusted domains scored against behavioral anchors. Answer Containment is weighted 22% on cross-examination and 7% on direct. A thorough answer that educates a jury is a vulnerability under adversarial questioning.
Every weak exchange gets a model response. Every trap gets classified: Accepted, Deflected, or Neutralized. Every session produces a formal PDF report formatted like a real forensic evaluation.
Get your FTCI score →Developing competency range. Domain-specific vulnerabilities identified with active impeachment exposure.
Did you recognize the trap?
The FTCI knows.
Every adversarial technique is identified, classified, and scored. Not just did you answer well. Did you see it coming.
"Doctor, either he understood right from wrong or he didn't. Which is it?"
"You cannot rule out that the incident caused the depression. Correct?"
"Self-report has limitations... limited collateral... validity concerns... so given all that..."
"Earlier you said intermittent. Now you're saying persistent. Which is it?"
"Can you tell this jury with 100% certainty?"
"Can you tell us whether the defendant would reoffend tomorrow?"
"In your 2019 article you wrote... yet here you've done exactly that."
Every cutoff score.
Every trap. Every diagnosis.
The reference panel is open during every session. Instrument cutoffs, validity indicator thresholds, seven trap types with strong and weak response comparisons, seven legal standards, and the full DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for 12 disorders with forensic attack lines and rule-out differentials. This is the training corpus, available mid-simulation.
Browse the full reference library →Test your report
before opposing counsel does.
Upload your evaluation report. The system de-identifies the evaluee, extracts your methodology, and identifies every point where opposing counsel will attack. For each vulnerability, you get the defense rationale, the words to say on the stand, and the mistakes that would undermine your position.
You review and confirm the extraction before anything runs. The third layer of verification is yours.
Test your report →Identify and resolve vulnerabilities before someone else exploits them
Four Attorney Archetypes
The Bulldozer interrupts and overwhelms. The Surgeon builds contradictions quietly across 12 exchanges before revealing them. The Friendly Trap extracts concessions with collegial warmth. The Skeptic treats everything with flat disbelief until you over-explain yourself.
Phase-Aware Simulation
Cross-examination, direct examination, deposition, and Daubert/Frye challenge, each with distinct behavioral expectations. A thorough answer on direct is a vulnerability on cross. The system knows the difference.
Real Federal Case Law
PCL-R Daubert challenges, Static-99R SVP proceedings, neuropsychological validity disputes. 962 chunks of indexed federal case law retrieved and injected into each session based on your instruments and proceeding type.
Forensic Testimony Competency Index
Seven phase-adjusted domains scored 1–10: Epistemic Grounding, Daubert Defensibility, Answer Containment, Trap Resistance, Composure Under Pressure, Boundary Maintenance, Language Precision. A composite 0–100 score with behavioral anchors and model responses for every weak exchange.
Trap Detection Scoring
Every adversarial technique is identified and classified: Accepted, Deflected, or Neutralized. Forced dichotomies, causation traps, cumulative concessions, temporal distortions, certainty demands. Each flagged with analysis and a model neutralizing response.
Formal Competency Report
A print-ready PDF formatted like a real forensic psychological evaluation. Third-person clinical narrative per domain, trap detection analysis, priority recommendations, and co-branded Waypoint Psychology + ForensicPrep letterhead.
In-Session Reference Library
Instrument cutoffs and validity indicators. Seven trap types. Seven legal standards. And the complete DSM-5-TR diagnostic corpus: criteria, specifiers, rule-outs, and forensic attack lines for 12 disorders including schizophrenia spectrum, mood, anxiety, somatic, and malingering. Open during every session. This is the reinforcement layer.
Temporal Inconsistency Attacks
After exchange 6, the attorney references your earlier answers with subtle distortions. "Intermittent" becomes "persistent," "consistent with" becomes "caused by." This is where simulations start to feel uncomfortably real.
Sideways Case Law Attacks
The case research panel surfaces the rulings you did not think to prepare for. Not the cases you know cold. The ones opposing counsel pulls from directions you did not see coming. A forensic psychologist in a wrongful death deposition sees learned treatise impeachment rulings and hired gun bias decisions, not PCL-R admissibility. Add any ruling to your session and the attorney will use it.
Epistemic Control Scoring
When unfamiliar authority is introduced under pressure, the correct answer is often "I would need to review that before commenting directly." The system tracks whether you overcommit to cases you don't know, accept false authority framing, or re-anchor to methodology. Guessing is penalized. Controlled uncertainty is rewarded.
Not the cases you know.
The ones they already have.
The case research panel reads your session profile and surfaces the federal rulings most likely to come at you sideways. Not the cases you know. The ones opposing counsel pulls that you never thought applied to you.
A forensic psychologist in a personal injury deposition sees learned treatise impeachment rulings and hired gun bias decisions, not PCL-R admissibility, which they already know cold. Add any ruling to your session and the attorney will reference it. CourtListener indexes over a million federal opinions. This panel surfaces the ones worth being afraid of.
A document you can hand someone
and be taken seriously
Every scored session generates a print-ready PDF formatted like a real forensic psychological evaluation: third-person clinical narrative per domain, trap detection analysis, numbered recommendations, and co-branded letterhead. For supervision or professional development records.
Built for your specialty
"Brilliant."
If your report hasn't been tested like this,
opposing counsel will do it for you.
The vulnerabilities are already in the report. The question is whether you find them first.
Private, self-contained simulations. Session content is stored in your account only. Not shared with third parties, not used to train AI models, accessible only to you. Practice without consequence.
Less than one hour of consultation. Sessions never expire.
"Truly impressive."
"Fun and useful. I'm sharing it widely."