In June 2025, Ben Scher testified in a jury trial on behalf of the defendant in United States v. Kenia Valle Boza. In this criminal case, the government alleged that Ms. Valle Boza orchestrated a scheme to code fraudulent patient diagnoses in order to increase government payments to HealthSun, a Medicare Advantage plan. Ben performed a comprehensive analysis of millions of records of data—which showed patterns that were inconsistent with the allegations—and presented his work and findings to the jury. Ms. Valle Boza was found not guilty on all counts.
Ben shares lessons from this testifying experience, which provide a glimpse into how he approaches and tackles his work.
Use data to tell the story
Often, we think of data as useful for quantifying damages (or lack thereof) in legal matters. While of course this is true, data can serve other important purposes, like providing an objective and verifiable view of what actually happened and showing whether what actually happened is consistent with what is being alleged.
In this case, my analysis of the data revealed patterns and observations that were completely inconsistent with the allegations of a fraud scheme. This was very clear to me. So then the challenge arose: how can I explain my analyses and findings in a clear and impactful manner to others, namely a jury?
I had done months of work, and I gave a lot of thought to how I could “tell the story.” This included thinking not just about the analysis itself (obviously important), but also about what graphs/tables/visual aids would be most useful and impactful in depicting the analysis and my findings. What words should I use to describe the work and results? In what order should I present my analysis and findings? What key themes should I thread throughout? Really, it came down to this: how do I make my work engaging such that the audience will stay tuned in and find the information clear and impactful? I knew that if I was the only person to understand the story, then it wouldn’t be worth much.
Know your work inside and out
Knowing your opinions and analyses inside and out is critical. There can be a lot of uncertainty at trial. Details like when you’ll take the stand, how long you’ll have to testify, what visual aids and demonstrative you can use—all of these can be moving targets. Really knowing your analyses and opinions makes this uncertainty so much easier to deal with. By the time of trial in this case, I had every important statistic, pattern, and finding deeply ingrained into my thinking. In a sense, it felt like one’s name: you don’t “memorize” your name, you just know it. Because of the work I’d put in, that’s how I felt about my key analyses and findings.
Stay composed
Trial testimony and cross examination can involve pressure and stress. It’s critical to maintain your composure and confidence even under what can feel like aggressive cross examination. If you look or act like you are rattled (even if you aren’t or shouldn’t be, based on the questioning), it can undermine your credibility with the jury. In my view, this comes back to the theme above. I’d looked at the data harder than anyone else. I’d stress tested my analyses. I was confident in my opinions. Knowing all of that helped me to maintain my composure and confidence: I knew my analyses were strong and my opinions were sound, so there was no reason to think otherwise or appear uncertain.
Close collaboration yields great results
In this matter, I worked with a fantastic group of attorneys at McDermott Will & Schulte and Fridman Fels & Soto. In the roughly six months leading up to trial, we met and discussed my analyses and opinions on a frequent basis. By trial, not only did I know my analyses inside and out, but I felt that they did too, since we talked about my work and opinions so often.
While my analyses and opinions are of course mine and mine alone—a point that is very important to me as a testifying expert—these discussions with counsel nevertheless were helpful to me in at least three critical ways. First, they helped me to refine the presentation of my work. For example, if the attorneys found a graphic confusing, that was important feedback: it meant I needed to explain/illustrate my findings more clearly. Second, these meetings provided ongoing practice for me to explain my opinions out loud. I find that what’s in someone’s head isn’t always the same as what comes out when they are trying to explain something. Getting in to figure out the right words, the right themes, and the right emphasis is incredibly useful. Third, the ongoing discussions helped me orient my testimony because I came to understand elements of counsel’s message and approach. For example, they may mention a point they were making unrelated to my data analyses, and it would cause a lightbulb to come on in my head: my analysis of the data was making a related, supporting, or complimentary point.
After listening to closing arguments, my distinct impression was that our collaboration model had paid off. It was clear that my analyses and story fit into an even broader narrative that incorporated other witness testimony, facts, etc. All these pieces were seamlessly threaded with common themes.
At the close of the case, the attorneys were incredibly complimentary. They wrote about me and my team on LinkedIn: “You … made the data come to life. Through your work, the jury got to see what was actually going on. You gave them direct insight into the truth. You were essential to defending our innocent client… [You] were partners in every aspect of the case, from development and strategy to Ben’s commanding trial testimony.”
