ILNews

IBA: Classic Techniques for Controlling Challenging Witnesses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
kautzman-john-mug Kautzman

By John F. Kautzman
Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis & Hasbrook


From the onset, let the witness know that you know the case, and you know the facts, better than he does. Pack your early questions with plenty of detail, so the witness already knows that you have a command of the facts, and his fear of embarrassment might make him think twice before sparring with you. For example, if the case involves a specific intersection where an accident occurred, walk through a detailed description of that intersection, pointing out tiny landmarks that even he might not be sure of. The time that you take in the early part of your examination to force the witness to respect your knowledge will pay huge dividends by the end of your examination.

This also has the benefit of giving you an air of authority over this case. It helps your credibility with the jury, and implies to the witness that if he tries to take you on, you will prove to the jury that he is wrong and thereby embarrass him.

Another technique in witness control is asking only short questions, designed to be “building blocks” based upon one concept at a time. Short questions are less likely to be objectionable to the other side, and therefore you don’t risk letting the other side upset the flow of your examination. Secondly, short questions are less likely to confuse the jury, and the jury will be able to watch you build your pyramid of proof. Thirdly, and most importantly, the narrow scope of your question gives the witness fewer avenues of escape. Therefore, there is less ability for him to take control, and a much greater chance of your keeping control.

Use leading questions. Now I did not say ask only leading questions – I said “USE” leading questions. A good trial lawyer will tell you that there are situations which require you to deviate from leading questions. Sometimes, simply for style reasons you need to change your pace and ask non-damaging questions in an open way. Other times, you are simply trying to pound on your theory of the case, and you really don’t care how the witness answers the question. Other exceptions exist as well. However, those exceptions should be used sparingly. Even on those rare occasions when you deviate from leading questions, make sure you only do it in an area where you have thought through the consequences. Don’t box yourself into an open-ended question and then allow the witness to hurt you with his explanations.

Always conduct your examination in such a way that there is a point! Elicit the required information and stop. Otherwise, you will be faced with the lawyer’s nightmare of asking one question too many. Doing this will almost certainly allow the witness to destroy an effective cross-examination with a last minute flippant answer or explanation.

Another method of controlling the witness is to simply let him know that you already have him locked in, and that you are not going to let him stray from that previous statement. You may even wish to remind the witness about the prior statement at the beginning of your examination by reminding him that he made a sworn statement not too long ago and that due to the rules of evidence, it is now necessary for him to testify in person concerning the subject matter. In this way, you are subtly (but very clearly) reminding the witness that no matter how clever he thinks he his, you intend to restrict him to his previous statement.•

Next: Techniques for Controlling Challenging Witnesses That Work, Some with Risk

Reference material and suggested reading : Fundamentals of Trial Techniques by Tom Mauet, Cross Examination-Science and Techniques by Larry Pozner and Roger Dodd, The Litigation Manual – A Primer for Trial Lawyers from the American Bar Association, and The Power of the Proper Mindset by James W. McElheney.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "Am I bugging you? I don't mean to bug ya." If what I wrote below is too much social philosophy for Indiana attorneys, just take ten this vacay to watch The Lego Movie with kiddies and sing along where appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzMjoH0rJw

  2. I've got some free speech to share here about who is at work via the cat's paw of the ACLU stamping out Christian observances.... 2 Thessalonians chap 2: "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."

  3. Did someone not tell people who have access to the Chevy Volts that it has a gas engine and will run just like a normal car? The batteries give the Volt approximately a 40 mile range, but after that the gas engine will propel the vehicle either directly through the transmission like any other car, or gas engine recharges the batteries depending on the conditions.

  4. Catholic, Lutheran, even the Baptists nuzzling the wolf! http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama-hhs-paid-baptist-children-family-services-182129786-four-months-housing-illegal-alien-children/ YET where is the Progressivist outcry? Silent. I wonder why?

  5. Thank you, Honorable Ladies, and thank you, TIL, for this interesting interview. The most interesting question was the last one, which drew the least response. Could it be that NFP stamps are a threat to the very foundation of our common law American legal tradition, a throwback to the continental system that facilitated differing standards of justice? A throwback to Star Chamber’s protection of the landed gentry? If TIL ever again interviews this same panel, I would recommend inviting one known for voicing socio-legal dissent for the masses, maybe Welch, maybe Ogden, maybe our own John Smith? As demographics shift and our social cohesion precipitously drops, a consistent judicial core will become more and more important so that Justice and Equal Protection and Due Process are yet guiding stars. If those stars fall from our collective social horizon (and can they be seen even now through the haze of NFP opinions?) then what glue other than more NFP decisions and TRO’s and executive orders -- all backed by more and more lethally armed praetorians – will prop up our government institutions? And if and when we do arrive at such an end … will any then dare call that tyranny? Or will the cost of such dissent be too high to justify?

ADVERTISEMENT