All posts tagged: Cross-Examination

Man Yelling in Microphone

Yell, Compel, or Soft-Sell: How Blatant Must Cross-Examination Be?

Published by

Among Irving Younger’s commandments were the well-known dictates of “be brief” and “save the ultimate point of your cross for summation.” The latter was the model for an eyewitness cross-examination at a recent training on litigating mistaken identification cases, but when we polled the mock jury one of its members – discussing the cross – said “I had no idea what the lawyer was doing or what his purpose was.” It was only one juror, and others ‘got it,’ but the experience gave me pause. The question was, and remains – is it better to make your points and leave the rest for closing; or must we re-examine Younger’s proscription and ‘push’ the point more explicitly? Let me first present the cross as delivered and then the analysis. The cross was designed to make three essential points: that the witness had barely any time to view the perpetrator (and was looking at the gun rather than the robber’s face); that police ‘bad practices’ created the false memory; and that the accused did not fit the …

Incorrect Math Equation

Learning From Mistakes: An Imperfect Cross-Examination

Published by

“By seeking and blundering we learn” – Goethe “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work” – Thomas Edison. “A spelling mistake in the DNA of a gene within the brain seems to impair the ability of a person to improve their performance based on knowledge of earlier errors.” – News Story, The Telegraph, 2007. The first two quotes above are inspirational and reflect insight; the third, sadly, seems to fit many lawyers who never recognize their errors and thus persist in their bad habits, especially in the courtroom. It is probably not genetic, but the recurrence argues for a model where we study error, diagnose and diagram it, and then take corrective steps. That is the rationale for this and forthcoming “learning from mistakes” columns. Although there are no hard data to back up this assertion, it is undeniable that poorly constructed cross-examinations occur on a daily basis in courtrooms across this nation. And they are conducted by lawyers with years of experience who, sadly, don’t recognize mistakes and learn …

Baggage

Taking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness

Published by

Sadly, it can be the rare witness who does not come with some baggage – a criminal conviction, a potential bias, an inconsistent statement, or some other challenge to her/his credibility. So, the proponent of that witness has to make a choice – bring it out first, or simply wait for the sting of cross-examination. The suggestion of this article is to do the former, a technique supported by law and, as importantly, by the tenets of solid advocacy. As litigators, we are told emphatically that a witness’ credibility may not be bolstered before it is attacked. But this is wrong in two regards – the limitation is actually as to bolstering with character for truthfulness, which may occur only after an averment of the witness having an untruthful character; and it is inapposite when the form of bolstering has the appearance of attacking one’s own witness. Abundant caselaw makes this point. As explained by the First Circuit nearly thirty years ago, “[t]he prosecution, having called a witness, may then ‘take the wind out of …

Cross-Examination

The Prosecutor Cross-Examines: A Guide to Avoiding Unfairness and Reversible Error

Published by

Prosecutors cross-examine much less frequently than do defense counsel, for good reason. Often defendants do not testify (with some data sets putting the number below the 50% threshold for felony cases that go to trial), whether because they have little too say, there is ample impeachment evidence the jury will not hear if they remain silent, or their educational and developmental limitations make them poor candidates for taking the witness stand. And the proportion of defendants who do testify may vary region to region and crime to crime. All of these factors make cross of a criminal accused a less practiced art. Just as fundamental skills may become rusty with limited use, knowledge of controlling principles of law may also erode or become lost entirely when the cross of a defendant is a relative rarity. And there is enough developed law to warn prosecutors away from potential pitfalls, areas of cross-examination that can end in a mis-trial or reversal on appeal. “Are you calling the police witnesses liars?” In the heat of battle and the …

Cross-Examination

Are The “10 Commandments of Cross-Examination” Sufficient?

Published by

For forty-plus years, learning the art of trial advocacy has included the obligatory viewing of a tape of Irving Younger’s “10 Commandments of Cross-Examination” lecture. And every lawyer who has ventured into the courtroom has seen – if not personally experienced – the dire consequences when a commandment is violated, in particular when the cross-examiner asks the one question too many or inquires about a subject where the answer is not already known. Younger himself acknowledged that the Commandments he posited were meant to be broken by masters of the craft, but urged that adherence to them ensured a safe, productive cross. And the latter point can’t be denied. Were every cross-examiner to follow Younger’s directives, there would be less error in courtroom proceedings. But are there more or different Commandments? Did Younger’s approach leave gaps? The answer to both questions is “yes.” Let’s first recall the 10 that Younger preached. They are: Be brief Use plain words Ask only leading questions Be prepared Listen Don’t get into a quarrel Avoid repetition Disallow witness explanations …