Knowing your discipline isn't enough when a skilled attorney challenges every word. Practice against AI that knows PCAST, NAS, and the literature—then get feedback that makes your testimony unshakeable.
You stated this was a "match." Are you aware that the 2016 PCAST report found insufficient evidence for the claimed zero error rates in latent fingerprint analysis?
I'm familiar with the PCAST report. To clarify: I observed sufficient corresponding ridge detail to reach my conclusion. I can speak to the specific features I relied upon and the studies that validate this methodology...
You know your discipline. But can you defend it when every word is challenged?
Defense attorneys cite scientific literature challenging forensic methods. How you respond shapes the jury's perception of your entire testimony.
Overstating certainty or fumbling statistics can devastate credibility. The difference between "zero" and "very low" matters enormously.
Distinguishing observation from conclusion—what you saw versus what you inferred—is critical and often poorly articulated.
Build testimony skills that hold up under pressure
Study curated resources on testimony best practices, explore key literature, and chat with an AI tutor to deepen your understanding.
Face cross-examination from an AI attorney calibrated to your experience—from routine challenges to expert-backed attacks citing specific studies.
Get detailed feedback on every response. Track progress across five dimensions. See your scores rise over time.
Don't just practice—prepare. Our curated learning library and AI tutor help you master the literature and concepts that attorneys will challenge.
Access summaries and key takeaways from essential forensic science literature—PCAST reports, NAS findings, error rate studies, and more.
Chat with an AI tutor to explore concepts, ask questions about the literature, and prepare for specific topics before you practice.
Based on your practice performance, get personalised recommendations for what to study next to strengthen weak areas.
Feedback based on Model Forensic Science standards—the same framework defence experts use to challenge testimony.
Ground your testimony in peer-reviewed methodology and validated techniques
Communicate error rates, limitations, and confidence levels clearly
Demonstrate objectivity, proper blind procedures, and freedom from advocacy
Distinguish between observations you made and conclusions you drew
Acknowledge scope of expertise and defer appropriately when warranted
Questions drawn from PCAST, NAS, and peer-reviewed error rate studies
Track improvement across the specific areas that determine testimony credibility
Rehearse sensitive case scenarios without saving session history
Practice as often as you need—before depositions, trials, or certification exams