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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT