At the risk of over-simplification…if you testify dramatically differently at trial than you did at your deposition you’re going to have some explaining to do.

But sometimes it’s okay to deviate and explain. Here’s why:

Memory is a reconstructive process, not a perfect recording. Memories are built and modified over time. The brain re-frames and edits events to accommodate new information and fit a person's current understanding of what happened.

So there’s some latitude. And you’re not 100 percent locked into what you said earlier. If you receive new information between your deposition and trial the most honest thing you can do is incorporate it in your testimony.

I was asked to describe a collision the other day. My description of what happened is different than it was a year ago. Why? Because I’ve now seen the dash-cam video and it filled in a lot of the blanks that were previously occupied by inference rather than remembered facts.

If you know more now than you did when you sat for your deposition, incorporate that new knowledge instead of feeling hamstrung by what you said earlier.