Gene Stearns, Archaeologist?

We all know lawyers who think they can best every expert they have ever encountered, regardless of how technical or esoteric the field or subject matter.

And some can.

But Gene Stearns' aggressive cross-examination of experts (including his own) was not something the genteel Miami Preservation Board members were apparently used to:
But a board majority was evidently unpersuaded, with some expressing displeasure at Stearns’ extended legal wrangling and combative style of questioning, which may not have helped MDM’s public case.
Board member Gerald Marston, clearly irritated, interrupted Stearns to ask him whether he had an archaeology or engineering degree as the lawyer argued with an expert about how the Tequesta may have built their dwellings.

Another member, David Freedman, the lone vote in favor of the plaza plan, called Stearns’ “denigration” of Kaufman’s comparison of the site’s treatment to Stonehenge “offensive.’’
Question -- who is the audience here?

Are you trying to convince the board members to vote your way, or are the theatrics merely to create a record on appeal?

Even the lone member who voted in Gene's favor did so grudgingly.

I hope the transcript reads really well!

Read more here:


  1. What about Weaver, Weisler, Alardef or Siterson?

  2. Definitely not a SW fan, but aren't we all "experts" in court? We CX hedge fund managers while we aren't professional investors, accountants about GAAP while we aren't CPAs, cops about appropriate force while we aren't soldiers, hiring personnel while we aren't HR managers, car manufacturers while we aren't engineers, etc. I don't think he was implying he's an archeologist anymore than merely an advocate. Your post was probably tongue-in-cheek but obviously we have to argue with experts otherwise they run roughshod over our clients.

  3. Except when they were our expert, and are right. Then we just look like a dick.

  4. He said lone member


Post a Comment