Credibility Through A Courtroom Lens

Imagine that you are in a court of law. You've been called as an expert witness, and the lawyer for the prosecution is attempting to convince the jury that you are a credible witness. What will he try to prove?

First, that you are a person of integrity -- that you are honest and congruent, that you have a reputation for being truthful, and that you would not lie.

Second, that you have good intent -- that you're not trying to deceive or protect anyone, that you don't have any hidden motive or agenda that would color your testimony. 

Third, that your credentials are excellent, that you do, indeed, have expertise, knowledge, skill, and capability in the area in which you are called to testify.

And fourth, that you have a good track record, that you have demonstrated your capabilities effectively in other situations in the past, that you produce results, and that there is good reason to believe that you will do so now.

Now the lawyer for the defense gets up, and he's going to attempt to convince the jury that you're not credible. What will he try to prove?

The exact opposite.

Perhaps that you lack integrity -- that you are dishonest or have lied in the past, or that you're "flaky" or have some character flaw that would discredit your testimony. Or that you have some hidden agenda or some motive to "spin" your testimony in the prosecutor's behalf. Or that your credentials are lacking and you are not qualified to testify in the area of your supposed expertise. Or that your track record is tarnished or lacking -- that you haven't produced good results or demonstrated the ability to accurately discern the facts.

As my lawyer friends affirm, it basically boils down to these four issues: your integrity, your intent, your capabilities, and your results. Your credibilit -- as an expert witness, as a person, as a leader, as a family, as an organization -- depends on these four factors. And that credibility would be vital to the case, particularly if there were no irrefutable physical evidence, thus implying that the verdict would really come down to the credibility of people's testimonies. In such cases, it is the credibility of the witnesses that's really on trial.

In a recent case that relied on testimony rather than tangible evidence, the defense attorney asked the judge to hold a pretrial hearing to "determine if the complaining witness is even credible enough to provide reliable testimony." As a USA Today headline read in the midst of the Enron trial, "Verdict Could Hinge Solely on [Skilling's] Credibility on Stand." Following a "guilty" verdict, the new headline read, "Jurors: Ex-Enron Execs Not Credible."

In court or in life, a lot can depend on whether you are believable -- or not. For example, during the 2005 governmental investigation of the AIG insurance transaction with General Re (owned by a subsidiary of Warren Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway), Warren Buffett's reputation for ethics and integrity clearly gave him the benefit of the doubt even before any details of the transaction concerns were known. An ethics professor at Wharton Business School said, "Given his track record, I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt."

Another CEO said, "Here's somebody who is wealthy and visible enough that everything has been scrutinized. He has not just a reputation, but a track record."

Buffett, of course, was cleared of any wrongdoing, but he never even suffered any taint for being "in the area" because of his unquestioned credibility.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An excerpt from my book, The Speed of Trust. Copyright (C) 2006 by CoveyLink, LLC.  Reprinted by permission of Free Press, a Divison of Simon and Schuster, Inc.  To read my previous post, "The Hidden Variable of Trust," click here. Or continue onto the next article, "Developing Self-Confidence Through Personal Committment," here.

Join the conversation on The Speed of Trust by clicking on the button below.