Add Emotion and Character When Appropriate. You could say that. Listen carefully to each question. Vary your responses. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Search This Site Search for:. Did you write a report in this case?
Yes, I did. Based on that, you went to the apartment complex office? And you got information on Elm? I only asked about Elm. You knocked on that door?
In that time, you applied for zero warrants? You know how to apply for warrants? Nonetheless, you knocked on that door without one? And there were four other police officers with you? With guns?
Holstered guns, yes. Janice Smith answered the door? And you asked her where J. It is. A felony? I believe so. So, you threatened to send her to prison? Objections to Testimony With the following 11 mock trial objections, attorneys can object to improper testimony that a witness gives.
Non-Responsive Witness This objection can be made when the witness does not provide an answer to their question. Relevance Evidence must be relevant to be admitted. Witnesses can only testify to relevant matters. The witness is testifying to irrelevant matter. More Prejudicial Than Probative An attorney can object to evidence if it is substantially more prejudicial than probative.
The question seeks testimony that is substantially more prejudicial than probative. Narrative A narrative is when the witness talks non-stop, without interruption. Calls for a narrative. The witness has lapsed into a narrative. Foundation A witness needs to have testified to enough background facts to show they are able to provide the testimony they are giving. Consider this example: Q: Good evening, Ms. Please introduce yourself to the Court. Q: Do you know Shay Miller?
A: Yes, I do. Q: How do you know her? A: She goes to Beachside too, and we became friends on my first day at this school. Q: How would you describe Ms.
Lacks foundation. The question lacks foundation. Calls for speculation. The witness lacks personal knowledge to provide this testimony. During her direct examination, she testifies as follows: Q: Ms. Witch, what did you do the morning of December 1? A: I woke up, spoke with my magic mirror, and then wandered in the forest for about a half-hour.
Q: Did you do anything in particular while you were in the forest? A: I am training for a 5K race, so I jogged about three miles. Now, consider these questions during Ms. A: Yes, it is. A: Yes, I suppose I was.
The question calls for an unfair extrapolation. The witness has testified to an unfair extrapolation. Improper Lay Witness Opinion Generally, lay witnesses non-expert witnesses can only testify about things they have personal knowledge about. Dwarf, what was the cause of Ms. A: She had been poisoned by an apple. Calls for improper lay witness opinion. The witness has provided an improper opinion.
Improper Expert Opinion Unlike lay witnesses, expert witnesses have special knowledge, education, training, experience, or skill. A: In my opinion, it was the poisoned apple she ate. Improper opinion. It comes in three forms : Opinion evidence: This is when a testifying witness gives their opinion about someone else. Example: Diane defendant is being prosecuted for attempted murder. There are three exceptions to the rule against using character evidence.
For example, Diane can introduce evidence that last semester, instead of getting in a fight with someone who had provoked her, she talked to the person and reached a peaceful resolution. The question calls for inadmissible character evidence. The witness has provided improper character testimony. Hearsay The hearsay rule is: Evidence of out-of-court statements cannot be offered for the truth of the matter….
There are two steps to a hearsay analysis. Ask short questions Cross examination questions must be short in both execution and concept. If a question is more that fifteen words long, it is not short in execution. Make it shorter. If a question contains more than a single fact or implication, it is not short in concept. Divide it. Short, single-fact, propositional questions enable attorneys to keep control of witnesses during cross examination. Long questions have an almost limitless capacity to deprive a cross examiner of witness control and to be easily forgotten or misunderstood.
The more words you use, the more chance there is that a witness will become confused by them or refuse to adopt them all. It is therefore preferable to divide areas of questioning into their smallest component parts. For example, assume that you are cross examining the defendant in the fire truck case.
You want to establish the distance from his parking garage to his office in order to show that he was in a hurry to get to his meeting that morning. This technique allows you to do two things. First, it cuts off the escape route for a witness who is inclined to argue or prevaricate.
More importantly, it lets you know early in the sequence whether the witness is likely to disagree with you. If you have already established all of the incremental facts that lead to your conclusion, then you will have little to gain by making the question explicit.
At best you will repeat what has become obvious, and at worst you will give the witness an opportunity to recant or amend the foundational testimony. Even worse, you may not have established the incremental facts as fully as you thought. Under these circumstances you can expect the witness not only to disagree with your ultimate proposition but to be prepared to explain exactly why you are wrong. The classic approach to cross examination calls for the lawyer to elicit all of the facts that lead to the ultimate conclusion and to then stop.
The final proposition is saved for final argument. By saving the ultimate point for final argument, you ensure that the witness will not be able to change or add to the testimony. To a certain extent you also avoid informing opposing counsel of your argument, and you diminish the likelihood of having your position refuted either on redirect or through another witness.
Correct the problem yourself You can often correct an unresponsive answer by simply re-asking your question. There was no horn or bell. All of the other cars did stop? An inattentive lawyer might have interpreted that answer as a denial or otherwise let it go by. The advocate above listened more carefully, however, and was able to obtain the precise information sought, There are other ways of accomplishing the same outcome.
You can repeat your question but this time ask it slower or use simpler language to make sure you are being clear. The possibilities are endless. Whatever you do, pick a method with which you are comfortable and be consistent so that you can effectively train the witness to answer your questions. If done effectively, eventually the witness will give you her answer as soon as she sees you turn toward the jury box and you may not even have to speak.
Your effectiveness in reining the witness back in will depend in large part upon the level of control that you established at the outset of your examination of the witness. A witness who has become accustomed to answering short, leading, propositional questions will be more likely to stop explaining. In contrast, a witness who repeatedly has been given latitude to explain wil be inclined to keep it up. Notwithstanding your best efforts and preparation, every once in a while you will encounter an impermissibly uncooperative witness who, for whatever reason, cannot be trained.
Some witnesses are overtly partisan, some are subtly uncooperative, and some are just plain ornery. While there is no requirement that a witness facilitate or enhance the goals of your cross examination, there is a requirement that the witness, within her ability, provide fair answers to fair questions.
When it is clear that a witness is utterly incapable of fulfilling this responsibility, you have earned the right to bring in the big gun: the judge. Preparing your questions Once you have selected the topics for each cross examination, write out short, single-thought, strictly factual sentences that develop each topic. It should now be a simple matter for counsel to convert this list into cross examination questions.
To do this, all counsel needs to do is take each first-person sentence and rephrase it into a second-person question. In fact, it is often best to leave the sentence in the form of a declaration, technically making it a question through voice inflection or by adding an interrogative phrase at the end. Many of the facts are not likely to be available from friendly witnesses.
0コメント