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

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


kautzman-john-mug By, John F. Kautzman, Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis & Hasbrook

Techniques of witness control are numerous and none should be overlooked, no matter how basic they may seem. For instance, when cross-examining a difficult witness always maintain eye contact. Avoiding eye contact is often interpreted as weakness. By directing your full attention to the witness’ eyes you serve non-verbal notice that you expect direct answer to your questions.

Be aware of body positioning and movement. While you are maintaining eye contact with the witness, you must stand firm and still as you await a response. This is necessary to convince the witness that all eyes are on him and the entire courtroom is waiting for a straightforward answer to the question that is before him.

Another good basic technique is to simply re-ask the same question. Thus, if you get a non-responsive answer, repeat the question once or twice until they get the message and answer the question. For example, without taking your eyes from the witness, slowly ask the question again in exactly the same words and the same tone of voice. This controlled repetition emphasizes to the witness, the judge, and the jury that the witness is refusing to answer a simply straightforward question.

A softer corollary to simply repeating the question would simply be to say “my question was” and then repeat the question. It sounds like you are trying to be more helpful than confrontational.

If you have received a long answer that beat around the bush and tried to confuse the real issue with a lot of window dressing, you might simply respond to such an answer by saying “so your answer is yes”. Depending on your demeanor, this can also be a more kind and gentle way of getting a witness back on track.

Many times using the formal name or title of the witness will remind the witness that he or she is risking embarrassment or humiliation. By using a formal name or title, (such as “Doctor or Professor”, did you not understand my question), the witness is made aware that you mean business.

Sometimes you can ask the court reporter to simply read the question back after your efforts have failed to get a simple answer to a simple question. However this is most effective when there is a stenographic reporter. In a more modern courtroom that just uses a tape recorder, that technique can be cumbersome. Yet another effective technique is called the “spontaneous loop”. A loop is the repetition of a key phrase. Often times, by listening closely to the witness’ answers, you will find a word or phrase that is helpful to you. In that instance, you simply loop the helpful phrase back to the witness. This technique helps silence rambling witnesses because they start to fear hearing their own words spoon-fed back to them. For example, if in the middle of a long rambling answer, the witness says that we did thus and such “like a normal family would”, the cross-examiner asks a series of follow-up questions such as, “so like any normal family you did this, and like any normal family you did this, and like any normal family you did that” etc.

There are a couple riskier techniques you might consider such as a physical interruption to a rambling answer to get the witness back on track. The most typical technique in this regard is the lawyer simply holding their hand up like a traffic cop “stop” signal. In essence, the lawyer has silently interrupted and the witness will stop, allowing the lawyer to restate the question and thereby refocus the answer.

Another physical technique that can be used, is simply walking back to counsel table while the witness is engaged in a lengthy non-responsive answer, sitting down, and staring down at the table as you let the witness ramble. The witness will usually sense the confrontation and stop, which will allow the lawyer to take a deep breath and slowly restate the question. This is a powerful technique, but since it is fairly insulting to the witness, it must be reserved for a witness who is clearly and completely worn out his welcome with the jury. Otherwise, (if used too quickly) you risk offending the jury by making the lawyer look arrogant or childish.

Finally, a powerful, but risky technique that should be reserve for very bad situations, is to simply pull over the blackboard and write the question out. It is a visual way of pointing out to the jury that you are simply trying to get a straight forward answer to a simple question. But once again, that kind of professional exasperation must be saved for the truly exasperating witness.

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.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.