Cross Examination
Cross Examinations
Cross Examination
Wayne Lyman Morse United States Federal Courthouse, Eugene, Oregon, 2006. Leaders Energy and Environmental Design Gold certification for energy efficiency.
Objectives
A cross examination is where the attorney conducts an examination of the other side’s witness.
The attorney usually pursues one or more of the following objectives:
- To develop favorable matters left unsaid on direct examination
- To demonstrate that the witness is lying
- To establish that the witness could not have seen or heard what they claimed
- To show the witness’s inability to recall the events accurately
- To show the witness’s bias or prejudice
- To establish any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, the witness may have in the outcome of the trial
- To impair the credibility of the witness
- By getting them to admit that they made statements on a prior occasion contrary to their current testimony
- By laying the foundation for proof of contradictory statements by another witness or document
- To impeach the witness
- By proof that he has been convicted of a crime
- By any other way permitted by law
- To introduce all of a conversation or document if the witness has testified to only a part out of context
- To bring to the jury’s attention that the witness testifies evasively, hesitantly, belligerently, or so slowly that they seem to be struggling to support their testimony
- To challenge the opinion of an expert witness
What the Attorney needs to know
- What is your team’s theory of the case?
- What themes does your team want to emphasize?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the witness in their statement?
- What are the three most important points your team wants to make with this witness?
- Suggest using a witness analysis sheet to prioritize issues
- What are the key facts your team wants the witness to admit/testify to?
- What is the overall impression your team wants to leave the jury with as to this witness?
- What exhibits do you want to use and perhaps introduce with the witness?
- What is the total time allowed for all cross examinations?
- Check the Mock Trial rules in your jurisdiction
- Allocate the time between all witnesses
- In Oregon, e.g., the total time allowed is 11 minutes
- What objections do you want to make against the witness’s testimony on direct examination
- What are the possible objections that might be made to the cross examination questions? What will be the response?
Anatomy of a Cross Examination: The Basics
- Identify the main points to address
- The objectives listed above are the ones most often used
- Others are case specific
- Suggest no more than three subject areas
- Develop a series of questions around each of these points
- Identify an organizational structure to use
- Based on importance
- Chronological
- Other
- Control the witness by asking only closed ended questions
- Questions that can only be answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’
- “You were driving you car at about 50 miles an hour, correct?”
- Open ended questions (who, what, when, where, why, how) will illicit a long response from the witness that will use up valuable time
- Have the exhibits ready that are needed
- Have the witness’s statement ready
- Be prepared to impeach the witness if they do not give the right answer
How to do a Cross Examination
Focus on two or three points, make sure that questions under each point are well organized, and leave the jury with a clear understanding of the points that were made.
The specific steps include:
- Analyzing the witness’ statement and ranking the possible issues in order of importance
- Identify the two or three top issues to focus on
- The objectives listed above are possible points
- Many points will be will be case specific
- Put the strongest points first and last and the weaker point in the middle
- Develop a series of questions under each of the points
- Use introductory remarks and transitions between each point
- Sometimes you may not want the witness to know where you are going (“Now I’m going to talk about your lying”) so just use a more general transition “Let’s talk about what you say you heard my client say at the party.”
- On the other hand, a transitional statement like “Now I’d like to talk about the order in which events occurred that evening” helps the jury to understand what the points are
Advanced Strategies
- Use different organizational structures depending upon the specific point
- Possible strategies for some common points
- Areas of agreement/favorable matters left unsaid on direct
- Excellent area to start with
- Non confrontational – an easy way to ease into the cross
- Don’t rush – let the jury hear each area of agreement
- Start and end with the most important areas of agreement to leave the jurors with the strongest impression
- Demonstrate the witness is lying
- Put this point last if it is the strongest, or in the middle if if is the weakest
- This point will create the most confrontation
- Pin down the witness’s testimony first
- Stick to the facts – do not directly accuse them of lying – let the jury come to this conclusion
- Establish motive for the lie – why are they not telling the truth?
- Establishing the witness could not have seen or heard what they have claimed
- Tell it as a story or paint a picture so the jury will get a picture in their mind
- Chronological and descriptive organization work well for this
- Use the precise language in the witness statement
- Bias or Prejudice
- Usually not strong enough to end with
- Use facts and do not argue
- Be clear on the type of bias you want to argue on closing
- Interest in the outcome
- Paid to testify
- Bias against a party
- Unconscious bias based on life experience
- Express conscious bias based on what they say and do
- Confirmation bias – you see you are looking for (and do not see other things)
- Impeachment of testimony at trial
- Best as the middle point – there are a lot of ways the witness can backtrack, qualify what they said, and wiggle out of the trap
- Confrontational by nature
- Compare and contrast structure works well for this
- Start slowly
- Keep the element of surprise – do not let the witness know where you are going
- Lock the witness into their testimony – get them to repeat what they have said
- End with the prior statement as a fact
- Do not argue with the witness
- There are certain unique points that can be made with expert witnesses (see discussion below)
- Areas of agreement/favorable matters left unsaid on direct
Going deeper: Improving Cross Examinations:
- In a Mock Trial the attorney is judged on both:
- Substance and technique . . . AND
- Performance and style
Substance and Technique
- Ask closed ended questions
- This deserves re-mentioning because deviation from this rule is a common mistake
- Ask closed ended questions in different ways
- Closed ended questions can be asked using words or using vocal inflection.
- Using words:
- “Isn’t it true that … ?”
- “You said . . . correct?”
- “You saw . . . right?”
- Through vocal inflection
- “You got out of your car?” (Inflection at the end)
- “And you ran away?” (Another inflection)
- Ask only questions you know the answer to
- The answer to these questions should be:
- In the witness’s own statement
- In the stipulated facts and within this witness’s knowledge
- In an exhibit this witness is familiar with
- In the direct examination testimony just given
- An exception is if you have a different direction to go if the witness answers either “yes” or “no.”
- The answer to these questions should be:
- Be prepared and organized
- For each question have a page and line numbers in the witness’s statement with the answer
- Have exhibits ready
- Have witness statement available if needed for impeachment or objections
- Have Mock Trial rules ready in case you need them
- After the first cross examination, check time remaining before starting each subsequent each cross examinations
- Ask questions that establish one fact at a time
- Paint a picture for the jury fact by fact allowing the jurors to reach the conclusion
- Ask only one question at a time
- Compound questions are objectionable
- “You hit someone lying in the road?”
- “You got out of the car?”
- “And you ran away from the accident scene”
- Lock the witness into testimony
- Questions should be clear and simple
- Avoid ambiguous questions
- Pin down witnesses to inaccurate versions of the facts, so they can’t wriggle free later
- Make adjustments based on each witness
- What type of witness are you dealing with?
- How is the actor portraying that witness?
- Are they honest?
- Are they nervous?
- Will they give control to you or fight you?
- Are they prone to exaggeration?
- Are they going to try to use up your time?
- Know your case and the witness well enough to be able to adjust your cross-examination approach on the fly
- Use the technique of looping
- Looping is when you take a previous fact admitted by a witness and weave it into subsequent questions for effect
- Still, only establish one new fact per question
- Practice double and triple loops.
- Example
- “It was about 12:00 noon?”
- “And you were driving your car down Washington Street?”
- “And while you were driving your car down Washington street at noon you were looking at a text on your cell phone?”
- “And as you were looking at the text on your cell phone you hit someone in the street?”
- Keep the questions simple and direct
- Do not use legalese
- Do not use big words – this is not an intelligence contest
- Complex questions confuse both the witness and the jury
- Use word repetition
- This is done for effect, to emphasize a point, and for drama
- Example:
- “You were responsible for the safety of the athletes on the football team?”
- “You were also responsible for having the football helmets tested?”
- “And you were responsible for recognizing the signs of a concussion?”
- With narcissistic and know-it-all witnesses consider pushing their testimony to the extreme
- This makes their testimony lack credibility
- Witnesses are not supposed to be advocates
- If a witness uses extreme language like “never,” “always” or “impossible” think of ways to push this to the point of appearing obstinate or even ridiculous
- Compare and contrast the extreme statement with other known facts and other extreme statements the witness may have made in the past
- Maintain control of the witness
- Ask simple closed ended questions
- Ask the witness to answer “yes” or “no” – be firm
- Impeach the witness if needed – but do so quickly so it doesn’t eat up time (see section below on impeachment)
- Witnesses are often coached to qualify their answers and use up valuable cross examination time – it’s part of the game some teams play
- Take advantage of the psychology of these negative witness habits (evasiveness, hostility) – let the witness show their worst qualities for a few questions while you try to be courteous and get them to just answer the question – once you have allowed the judge to see what they are doing, ask the court for assistance
- Ask the judge to instruct the witness to answer the question asked with a simple “yes” or “no” answer
- If the Judge denies your request the first time and the witness keeps doing the same thing, ask again for assistance.
- Stick to the facts – do not argue with the witnesses
- Do not ask the one question too many
- This is the question that tries to get the witness to agree with with your conclusions
- Keep to the facts
- Leave conclusions for closing argument
- Witnesses won’t usually agree to broad conclusions that make them look foolish.
- Example:
- “The woman was attacked at night.” “Yes”
- “It was raining.” “Yes.”
- “There were no stars.” “No.”
- “There was no moon.” “No.”
- The street lights were out.” “Yes”
- “You left your eye glasses in the bar.” “Yes”
- “And the whole assault took only a few second.” “Yes”
- Here is where the attorney should stop and not ask the next question (tying to get the witness to agree with the conclusion)
- “You didn’t see her attacker very well did you?
Answer: “No, I saw him clear enough. No doubt in my mind that that’s the guy (pointing to the defendant in the courtroom) It wasn’t so dark that I could not see his face.”
Performance and Style
- Practice
- Create drama in the courtroom
- Take charge
- Your focus should be on the witness
- Do not look directly at the jury
- Use pauses and silence as tools to build tension and emphasis
- Enunciate clearly
- Use an assertive voice (but not an aggressive voice)
- Vary your volume and tone for emphasis
- Positioning
- Position yourself so that the jury pays attention to you
- Proximity to the witness can create more drama
- Do not have your back to the jury
- Try to arrange it so that the witness looks at you and not the jury
- Memorize the Cross Examination
- Memorize content, movement, inflections, and gestures
- Listen to the witness’s testimony on direct examination and make adjustments accordingly
- If notes are needed
- Use sparingly
- Do not read from them
- Use a legal pad or clip board so they do not flop around
- Use body posture and movement deliberately and consciously
- Maintain upright body posture (do not slouch)
- Keep shoulders back to show confidence
- Place equal balance on both feet
- Move confidently, with purpose
- Movement can also help emphasize transitions between approach points
- Try not to fidget or have unnecessary gestures or body movements
- Use gestures consciously
- Gestures can be used to create drama and emphasis
- Don’t shy away from pointing to individuals in the courtroom
- Act professional and confident – even if you are nervous
Cross Examination of Expert Witnesses
Common objectives:
- To identify the facts and conclusions the expert agrees with
- To show the expert is not competent because they lack experience in the area they are testifying about
- To identify information the expert did not consider in forming their opinion
- To identify, and perhaps challenge, the assumptions on which the expert opinion is based
- To challenge the expert’s reasoning and the steps they follow in reaching their opinion
- To show the expert (or others the expert relied on) did an inadequate investigation, research, or testing
- To get the expert to admit that the opposite conclusion is possible (although they will still say it is not likely)
- To show expert is prejudiced or biased in some manner
- To show the expert has been paid to testify for one side, or routinely serves one group (for example defense attorneys)
- Confirmation bias – you see what you are looking for (common in research and in clinical studies)
- Consciously admitted bias
- Unconscious bias based on past experiences
- To impeach the expert on one some part of their testimony to show they were wrong – this casts doubt on their entire testimony
- To make the expert appear so adamant and opinionated that they lose credibility
Making and responding to objections
- Review and practice how to make objections (see this section on this website)
- When the other side objects to something you will have an opportunity to respond
- If the objection is a minor one as to the form of the question consider just correcting it so the flow of your story is not disrupted
- Example: “Objection, argumentative”, If it seems argumentative perhaps say “I’ll re-ask the question your honor.”
- Example: “Objection, no foundation”, if there is no stipulation which establishes the foundation just ask a series of questions to do so. “Who created this document?” “When was it created?” Etc.
- You should adopt a different persona when making and responding to objections than you have with the jury.
- Look at the judge
- Make your argument to the judge (not the jury or opposing counsel)
- Argue the law as applied to the facts
How to Impeach a Witness
- Impeachment poses a dilemma:
- Impeach the witness and use up valuable cross examination time; or
- Let the incorrect answer stand and use cross examination time on something else.
- Impeach the witness if:
- It is a critical issue
- You need to exert witness control
- You are not pressured for time
- To impeach efficiently you must:
- Know exactly where (page in line) the contradictory statement is in the witness’ statement
- Have the witness statement ready and available.
- Steps to impeach a witness
- Clearly establish the witness’ answer that contradicts their statement
- “I don’t remember”
- “The car was blue.”
- Option 1: Read from the statement yourself:
- “I would like to refer you to your sworn statement on (date)”
- “Counsel, I direct you to page ___ line ____”
- Read the part of the statement that contradicts or refreshes the recollection of the witness
- “This was your statement on on _____, was it not.”
- And you were under oath when you made this statement
- Option 2: Show the statement to the witness and have them read it
- This takes more time and a smart witness will take as much time as possible
- Under some rules, the opposing attorney or the judge may require you to show the witness their testimony
- Clearly establish the witness’ answer that contradicts their statement
How to do Re-Cross Examinations
- A re-cross is when the cross attorney asks the witness a question about something the direct attorney went into on re-direct
- A re-cross can help the attorney have the last word and make a final impression on the jury
- The cross attorney cannot ask a question on re-cross that does not relate to questions asked by the direct attorney on their re-direct or an objection may be raised
- The Mock Trial rules limit the number of re-direct questions that can be asked (often only two questions)
- Listen to what the witness says on re-direct
- Only ask a question if you think it will help your side