ILNews

IBA: Special Situations That Are Not Unique in Witness Control

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

kautzman-john-mug Kautzman

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

When cross examining a witness it’s not unusual to be confronted with the “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” witness. Evasive answers like “I don’t know or I can’t remember” shouldn’t necessarily frustrate the cross-examiner. In one respect the witness is no longer even attempting to exercise control and so the cross-examiner has won that confrontation. Do not become frustrated or angry with the witness. Simply try to use those answers to your advantage.

It is important for the cross-examiner to differentiate an actual failed recollection from “I don’t recall” (because I don’t want to answer). Obviously, in most situations the witness either once knew the information but has now forgotten the fact, never possessed knowledge of the information, or simply doesn’t want to answer. Once you can pinpoint the basis for the “I don’t know”, you can begin to show whether or not it is reasonable for the witness to have forgotten. If you ask a series of small one topic questions, you will then be able to bring out that either the witness is being reasonable, or is being absurd because they are failing to remember simple facts that anyone would remember. If the witness continues to say “I don’t know” or “I can’t remember” on even simply broken down questions, their credibility has been destroyed and total control has been turned back over to the cross-examiner.

Consider extracting as many “I don’t knows” as possible. Ask if the witness understands the questions. In short, let them damage their own credibility.

This also can become a perfect opportunity for you to point out that the witness has a selective memory. In other words, point out how you “apparently can remember this, but you cannot remember anything else about the situation”. If you go through step by step all of the things the witness can’t remember, which the jury thinks they probably should, the credibility of the witness has been destroyed.

What happens if the witness repeatedly wants to ask you a question, instead of answering your questions? They are the “questioning” witness.

The first tendency is to go ahead and answer the question, but if you do this, you are surrendering the courtroom to the witness. Never do that!

The second temptation is to remind the witness of your respective roles by telling him that you are the lawyer and that “you get to ask the questions”. But the jury may not appreciate your overbearing attitude when it seems that you are simply trying to hide from the witness. It’s another example where the perception might be of you taking unfair advantage of the witness, which the jury might resent.

Sometimes, you can even tell the difficult witness that later in his testimony we can get to the topics that he wants to cover, but for the time being you are focusing on a certain topic. The jury will usually forget if you never go back to the subject area that the witness wanted to cover, since they will expect the opposing lawyer to pick up on those points. (This technique is great for the springboard or smart aleck witness)

Although there is no tried and true solution for this problem, it is probably best to suggest to the jury that you have a perfectly good answer, but you are not permitted to testify. Don’t let the witness become the center of attention. The attorney should become the center of attention, and the witness must be force-fed concepts that he is obligated to agree with.

Finally, determine your objective with the witness, achieve the objective, and stop! Remember, you only put this witness on the stand to make a required showing of proof. Don’t try to take it any farther!

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT