ILNews

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.•

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. This is the dissent discussed in the comment below. See comments on that story for an amazing discussion of likely judicial corruption of some kind, the rejection of the rule of law at the very least. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774#comment

  2. That means much to me, thank you. My own communion, to which I came in my 30's from a protestant evangelical background, refuses to so affirm me, the Bishop's courtiers all saying, when it matters, that they defer to the state, and trust that the state would not be wrong as to me. (LIttle did I know that is the most common modernist catholic position on the state -- at least when the state acts consistent with the philosophy of the democrat party). I asked my RCC pastor to stand with me before the Examiners after they demanded that I disavow God's law on the record .... he refused, saying the Bishop would not allow it. I filed all of my file in the open in federal court so the Bishop's men could see what had been done ... they refused to look. (But the 7th Cir and federal judge Theresa Springmann gave me the honor of admission after so reading, even though ISC had denied me, rendering me a very rare bird). Such affirmation from a fellow believer as you have done here has been rare for me, and that dearth of solidarity, and the economic pain visited upon my wife and five children, have been the hardest part of the struggle. They did indeed banish me, for life, and so, in substance did the the Diocese, which treated me like a pariah, but thanks to this ezine ... and this is simply amazing to me .... because of this ezine I am not silenced. This ezine allowing us to speak to the corruption that the former chief "justice" left behind, yet embedded in his systems when he retired ... the openness to discuss that corruption (like that revealed in the recent whistleblowing dissent by courageous Justice David and fresh breath of air Chief Justice Rush,) is a great example of the First Amendment at work. I will not be silenced as long as this tree falling in the wood can be heard. The Hoosier Judiciary has deep seated problems, generational corruption, ideological corruption. Many cases demonstrate this. It must be spotlighted. The corrupted system has no hold on me now, none. I have survived their best shots. It is now my time to not be silent. To the Glory of God, and for the good of man's law. (It almost always works that way as to the true law, as I explained the bar examiners -- who refused to follow even their own statutory law and violated core organic law when banishing me for life -- actually revealing themselves to be lawless.)

  3. to answer your questions, you would still be practicing law and its very sad because we need lawyers like you to stand up for the little guy who have no voice. You probably were a threat to them and they didnt know how to handle the truth and did not want anyone to "rock the boat" so instead of allowing you to keep praticing they banished you, silenced you , the cowards that they are.

  4. His brother was a former prosecuting attorney for Crawford County, disiplined for stealing law books after his term, and embezzeling funds from family and clients. Highly functional family great morals and values...

  5. Wondering if the father was a Lodge member?

ADVERTISEMENT