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. 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