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

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. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT