Can you survive
cross-examination?
Most expert witnesses have never practiced being cross-examined. They walk into court having prepared their opinions. Not their testimony.
ForensicPrep simulates the exact questions opposing counsel will ask: instrument-specific, methodology-precise, and calibrated to expose the vulnerabilities you don't know you have.
Try the simulation free →14-day free trial · No credit card required
You spent years developing your clinical expertise. You've read the literature, administered the instruments, and written the report. But cross-examination is a different skill. It requires deliberate adversarial practice, not clinical training.
Experienced attorneys know exactly where forensic experts are vulnerable. They've read your instruments' manuals. They've deposed dozens of psychologists. They know the normative sample limitations of the Static-99R, the predictive validity debates around the ASPECT, and the exact phrases that make expert witnesses unravel on the stand.
The question isn't whether you know your field. It's whether you can defend it under sustained adversarial pressure. Most clinicians have never found out until it was too late.
This is what opposing counsel sounds like.
Can you answer these?
"Doctor, the Static-99R was developed on Canadian and British samples in the 1990s. My client is a 58-year-old American man. Can you tell the court the margin of error when applying these norms to someone who doesn't match the validation sample?"
You cited the instrument. Now you own its limitations. Most experts say 'the research supports its use,' which confirms they can't answer the question.
"You used the phrase 'clinically significant' four times in your report. Can you define that term for the jury in measurable, operationalizable terms, not clinical judgment, but something a layperson could verify independently?"
Clinical significance is a term of art with a specific DSM definition. Under pressure, most experts either over-explain and expose uncertainty, or under-define and look evasive.
"You interviewed my client for three hours. You reviewed records for approximately twelve hours. You did not interview his employer, his probation officer, or either of his adult children. In your professional opinion, what is the minimum number of collateral sources required for a forensically defensible risk assessment? Did this evaluation meet that standard?"
There is no official minimum. But the question implies there should be one. Any answer, including 'there is no minimum,' can be used against you.
ForensicPrep generates questions like these, and hundreds more, based on your specific instruments, your methodology, and your case context.
Find your vulnerabilities →Deliberate practice for the witness stand
Not impressions.
A real score.
The FTCI scores your testimony across seven clinically-grounded domains with behavioral anchors and transcript citations, not generic feedback. Every session produces a composite index you can track across sessions.
Developing. Significant preparation needed.
Any clinician opposing counsel can call
Find out where you are vulnerable.
Before they do.
14 days free. No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
Start the simulation →