ILNews

IBA: Controlling the Difficult Witness

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

By John F. Kautzman,
Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis & Hasbrook

One of the most important techniques for a trial lawyer to learn is witness control. This is obviously important in making your case clear and understandable in direct examination, but it is even more important when trying to destroy your opponent’s case through cross-examination.

Witness control, first and foremost, assumes:

1. You have achieved a mastery of the Trial Rules and the Rules of Evidence;

2. You understand the proper mind set —“YOU ARE THE REAL WITNESS!”; and

3. You know and can apply fundamental principles of cross-examination.

There are countless opinions on what makes a successful cross-examination, but the fundamental principles remain the same. Among these principles are three essential rules: 1) use primarily leading questions and proper pacing, 2) try to add only one new fact or topic per question, and 3) cross-examine in a logical progression toward a specific goal.

The most accomplished trial lawyers will also bear in mind these fundamentals:

• Use topical (not chronological order) for most cross-examinations.

• Lay the theme of your case early and often.

• When attacking credibility, show bias, interest, or motive early in your cross-examination.

• Always start and end with a powerful point. Never start or end with a risky proposition.

• When conducting an impeachment, do the cleanest (most easily achieved) impeachment first and last.

• Never let the witness dictate a change in your game plan.

• Place risky material which reveals your opponent’s best arguments in the middle of your cross-examination.

Mastering all of the fundamentals is only half of the job. Some witnesses require even more skill. Often the greatest fear of the cross-examiner is the difficult or runaway witness. Examples include witnesses who are non-responsive, evasive, rambling, and hostile. These witnesses pose a serious threat to the cross-examiner, and challenge the lawyer for control of the courtroom.

Witnesses like this can give trial lawyers a lot of sleepless nights and make us reconsider our career choice. But various techniques can help you establish — and reestablish — control.

Control must be achieved using professional techniques. Do not argue with the witness, talk over the witness, make a childish remark to the witness, or engage in any other unprofessional conduct which will make the lawyer look bad to the jury. There is no need to use loud, argumentative, or offensive language if you master proper cross-examination techniques. Remember: sometimes the witness becomes non-cooperative so quickly that control is not really lost but instead was never really established. In any event, the lawyer must achieve witness control.

Techniques for controlling a witness are usually reserved for cross-examination (or a quasi cross-examination with a hostile or adverse witness). It is not something that you would do on a normal direct examination, because that should be the witness you prepared and they should not wander out of control. If you start having problems with that, you need to rethink your preparation for direct examination.

Controlling a witness does not have to look rigid or overbearing. In other words, you can sometimes let the witness go and still actually maintain control as long as you know what point you want to make with the witness.

Of course, the basic techniques of impeachment are great tools for establishing control and retaking control. Prior inconsistent statements, impeachment by use of criminal convictions, and other related techniques all help you remind the witness who is in charge

Remember, all this comes back to the key purposes of cross-examination — to impeach the credibility and accuracy of adverse witnesses, and to take opportunities to bolster your theory of the case.

NEVER surrender control of the courtroom to anyone. Use your words and your delivery to maintain control and respect. If not required by the Judge’s local custom, don’t ask for permission to walk around the courtroom, or to approach the witness, and don’t constantly ask the judge for help. You should be the “Star” of that particular moment in the “Show,” and you should use that opportunity to restate the points that are favorable to your case.

Next: Specific Techniques for Controlling Challenging Witnesses

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT