Today's lesson: Cross examination don'ts -- opening the door.

[billdo1]

Cross examination of my client by opposing counsel, Mr. B, with regard to the prior testimony of two other witnesses, Mr. S & Mr. R.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (By Mr. B):

. . .

Q. In Mr. S's testimony yesterday, was he lying?

A. Yes.

Q. In Mr. R's testimony yesterday and earlier today, was he lying?

A. Yes.

Comments

[vix1]

Huh?

Re:

[billdo1]

Sorry. The other guy was trying to ask a wise-ass question of my client, not expecting that my client would directly accuse his client of lying. To his surprise, my client did.

Normally, I couldn't just ask my client "Why do you think the other guy is a lying sack of shit." But by asking the question on cross, he opened the door to my asking my client "Why?" As much as he really didn't want to hear it (and he didn't) the judge couldn't find a reason to keep the answer out.

Re:

[vix1]

Ah, gotcha.

[sueduhnym]

Sometimes it's just easier to let people talk, huh?

Re:

[billdo1]

The thing about cross-examination is that you're not supposed to just let people talk. You're supposed to ask very tight, usually leading, questions so that the witness doesn't get to talk but just give you the answers that you want. Ideally, you're supposed to only ask questions that you know the answers to, and can challenge the witness on if he or she gives an unexpected answer.

Here, Mr. B asked my client the question about whether his client was lying, and received the somewhat unexpected answer that my client accused his client of lying under oath. Obviously, Mr. B didn't follow up (except he repeated the question about the other witness), but his asking the question allowed me do so.

[pucette]

Excellent.