You blurt out, “It really doesn’t matter what side the ear bruise was on, because the bruise looked more like a pinch bruise than an impact to the side of the head.” The defense attorney asks that your response be “stricken from the record” because it is “non-responsive.” Then the judge spends a minute lecturing the jury that they should totally disregard and ignore what you just said. He asks you to answer only the questions that are asked.
Ouch!
Nobody likes getting admonished in court. It hurts your credibility, and it hurts your role as an impartial scientist.
You actually made a few errors here. The first is that you didn’t answer the question and got admonished for it. By arguing for a position, rather than simply stating facts, you appear biased for the prosecution. Lastly by trying to head off the defense, you gave the defense additional information.
You see, the defense attorney did not know that side impact can rarely cause ear bruises. Left with no other defense, the attorney was planning to suggest the bruises were caused by left sided coagulopathy. LSC is a very rare “disease,” that neither you nor any other scientist has heard of. It is an easy defense to discredit. Unfortunately, you just gave the attorney the gift of a lifetime: an actual explanation, however implausible, for the ear bruising. (LSC is a fictional argument, but it is only slightly less plausible than Temporary Brittle Bone Disease, which has been argued in over 70 real court hearings.)
In short, there are no “games” or “techniques” to court testimony. The best approach is to answer the questions succinctly but completely. There is no need to guess where the question is going. If, on cross examination, the questions leave an incorrect impression, then the attorney who called you can always ask additional questions to clear up any misunderstanding.
Avoiding the question didn’t work for you. Which answer are you going to give?
"The bruise was on the right ear."
I’m not sure. Could I look at my visit note and refresh my memory.