THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF CROSS-EXAMINATIOn
Much has been written about
the “art” of cross-examination. Not
all of it, though, involves art. Some
of it involves natural talent, but most of it involves hard work. In truth, three factors combine to
create this “artistic” success -- personality, presence and persuasion. These traits are often manifesting in
the ability to think and react quickly. But
something else is involved as well -- something that trial lawyers often hold
in short capacity. That something is humility, and the ability to know when to
quit. The art of
cross-examination involves all of these traits, and more than a little luck.
This article is intended to
provide yet another iteration of the Ten Commandments of
cross-examination. Here is
the caveat, however -- one does not learn to be good at cross-examination by
reading papers. The
successful artist learns by doing it, or watching others do it well; by reading
trial and deposition transcripts or, better yet, by conducting the examination
personally. In this era,
when there are too few trials to satisfy so many eager trial lawyers,
cross-examination techniques can be practiced in depositions. The trial lawyer must learn to get the
“feel” of a good cross-examination; to develop a personal cadence and
style. The trial lawyer
must learn as well to adapt to particular witnesses and different cases. But he or she learns by doing. In all this, of course, having some
general rules in mind will not hurt. Hence, the
“Ten Commandments.”
A. The First
Commandment: Thou Shalt Prepare
Of course, preparation
is essential, but it would be surprising to learn how many trial lawyers fail
to observe this basic principle. A lawyer must prepare in order to
know what topics to cover. A lawyer must prepare because the jury
will assess his or her depth of knowledge and commitment to the case by the
demonstrated ability to handle the details of cross-examination. If
the lawyer appears vague on the details, the jurors may conclude that they,
too, should be unconcerned about the finer points of the
case. Thorough preparation also will ensure that the witness
appreciates the lawyer’s competence. Under such circumstances, the witness will
be less willing to take advantage of the lawyer’s lack of first-hand
knowledge. It takes hard work, but dividends flow.
For a plaintiff’s
cross-examination, preparation involves digging into every relevant background
fact. This includes employment history, medical history, prior
statements, and every other important detail. The cross-examination
of the plaintiff can be a pivotal point at trial. Jurors tend to pay
special attention to this encounter because they recognize that it focuses the
essential controversy of the case -- a battle between the plaintiff and the
defendant. A prepared and effectively accomplished cross-examination
of the plaintiff, perhaps more than any other event at trial, can increase
significantly the chances of a defense verdict. Unfortunately, an
unprepared and poorly accomplished cross-examination can produce the opposite
result.
Because many cases are
decided by expert testimony, an attorney should prepare thoroughly for the
cross-examination of an opposing expert. Generally, significant
amounts of information must be gathered in advance of
cross-examination. As a starting point, it is important to master
the deposition taken in the case at hand because that deposition represents the
greatest opportunity for impeachment. However, one should review
depositions of the expert taken in other cases and be prepared to use them as
well. Experts sometimes forget what they say from deposition to
deposition; this is particularly true for the professional
witness. In addition, expert witness databases are available from
which to gather background information on a particular expert. It is
also a good idea to contact lawyers who have encountered the
expert. This creates an opportunity to build upon the good efforts
of others. Finally, it is important to obtain all of the
expert’s prior writings and to subpoena the expert’s entire case file, including
correspondence and other materials exchanged with opposing counsel or third
parties. In this regard, check for advertisements or expert listings
and carefully review all aspects of the expert’s curriculum vitae to ensure
that he or she has been accurate in every material respect.
One of the new and
critical resources for information on an expert is the
internet. Many experts maintain their own web
pages. Several, for example, will list numerous areas of “expertise”
to advertise their availability -- a fact that may diminish their
credibility before the jury. Several have questionnaires that can be
completed by attorneys or potential plaintiffs to allow them to “evaluate” a
case. If the expert is employed by an academic institution, the
institution’s web pages can be searched to learn what courses the expert may be
teaching. Many experts also are listed in internet expert
databases. Some even participate in newsgroup discussions.
In the example cited
below, use of the internet proved to be dispositive. The particular
case involved a plaintiff who was suffering from a rare form of cancer (T-cell
lymphoma). She argued that her cancer was caused by the defendant’s
product. Although there was virtually no science to support a
causative link, the plaintiff was able to enlist an advocate from the
M.D. Anderson Cancer Hospital in Houston. That physician was
willing to state that, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, the
defendant’s product caused the plaintiff’s cancer. In reality, however,
T‑cell lymphoma is a rare cancer whose cause remains unknown. On
cross-examination, the exchange between the expert witness and defense counsel
took the following course:
Q. You
are on staff at M.D. Anderson Cancer Hospital?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t
it true that M.D. Anderson Cancer Hospital has a web page?
A. Yes.
Q. Have
you ever had any articles published on the M.D. Anderson web page?
A. A
few.
Q. Do
you remember one of your articles that appeared on the web page just three
months ago?
A. I
think so.
Q. In
that article, you talked about T‑cell lymphoma, the very type of cancer
involved in this case?
A. I
believe so.
Q. Let’s
be sure. Is this the article that was published on the web page?
A. Yes,
that’s my article; it has my name on it.
Q. I
assume you knew that physicians and others might read this article?
A. Yes,
I assume so.
Q. And,
therefore, you wanted to be as accurate as possible?
A. Of
course.
Q. Turn
to page four of the article.
A. Okay.
Q. In
this article, which you published on the web page just three months ago, you
talk about what is known regarding the cause of T‑cell lymphoma, isn’t that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t
it true that you said the following: “No one knows what causes T-cell
lymphoma.” Is that what you wrote just three months ago?
A. That’s
what it says.
This testimony not only
discredited the witness, it also led the trial judge to conclude
that the physician lacked reliable scientific support for her
opinions. Judgment subsequently was entered for the
defendant. Preparation: the first and most important commandment.
B. The Second
Commandment: Thou Shalt Know Thy Objective
Irving Younger, an
advocate of short cross-examination, often stated that the lawyer should “make
three points and sit down.” Sometimes, that is the way to
go. Often, however, one needs to spend time with the witness to
develop several critical points to counter the impact of the direct
examination. Before initiating a cross-examination of any witness,
the lawyer should clearly bear in mind those points he or she wishes to make
with that witness. And then, he or she should write them
down. These points also should be discussed with those who are
assisting at trial. Effective cross-examination cannot be
accomplished without a clear understanding of which points are critical to the
case, and which ones can be extracted most appropriately from each
witness. Only when understanding how to make these points and how to
package them for the jury can a lawyer effectively communicate with the
jury. If the jurors are sitting in the box wondering where the
cross-examination is headed, it is likely that the lawyer does not know where
the cross-examination is headed. Therefore, it is critical to make a
list of what should be accomplished on cross. Near the end of that
cross-examination, it is a good idea to return to the list to ensure that all
points were covered.
C. The Third
Commandment: Thou Shalt Take Baby Steps
Patience is a virtue in
cross-examination. Delivery of key points is not just a destination;
it is a journey on which the jurors should accompany the
lawyer. They must understand step-by-step where the
cross-examination is headed. It is called
pacing; it is called communication.
Here is an
example. Assume the case is being tried with an expert who has
developed opinions, but has never submitted those opinions for peer
review. One way to handle the situation at trial is simply to ask
the following question:
Q. Have
your opinions ever been submitted for peer review?
A. No.
This exchange gets right
to the point. However, if the jury is to journey with the lawyer and
understand the point, the following series of questions might be posed, to
which the witness will likely answer “yes”:
Q. You
have heard about the peer review process?
Q. And,
by peers, we are talking about people in your area of science?
Q. So,
the peer review process involves a review of one’s opinions by his/her
scientific peers or colleagues?
Q. It
allows one to get valuable feedback from other scientists about what they think
of your opinions?
Q. It
can provide a sense of whether your opinions are generally regarded as
supportable and reliable by other experts in your field?
Q. Can
this be very valuable in the scientific process?
Q. Does
one form of peer review involve standing up at meetings and sharing your views
with peers or fellow scientists?
Q. You
are letting them know your opinions?
Q. And
you are discussing with them the basis of those opinions?
Q. This
allows your peers to comment on the strengths or weaknesses of your opinions?
Q. You
have been involved in this litigation for five years?
Q. You
have, for the last five years, been expressing these opinions in courtrooms around
the country?
Q. Have
you ever stood in front of a group of your fellow scientists to share with them
the opinions you have just shared with this jury on direct examination?
Q. Have
you ever, at any scientific meetings, sought feedback from your fellow
scientists on whether they think you are right or wrong?
Q. Is
another form of peer review the publication of articles?
Q. When
you submit an article to a good journal, the article is peer-reviewed before it
is published?
Q. By
that, I mean that the editor of the journal circulates the article to various
scientists for their comments?
Q. By
this process, can the editor be more comfortable that the opinions expressed in
the article are valid and supported by the evidence?
Q. This,
too, can be a valuable part of the scientific process?
Q. Can
it be a way of weeding out bad science?
Q. Have
you ever submitted a manuscript stating your opinions to a journal for
publication?
Q. Have
you even prepared a manuscript stating the opinions you have expressed to this
jury?
Q. Have
you in any form ever sought feedback from the publication peer-review process
concerning your opinions in this case?
Q. So,
sitting here today, after five years of involvement in litigation, you have
never taken the time to prepare a manuscript and submit it to a journal so that
your fellow scientists can determine whether it is even worthy of publication?
This journey takes
time. That is not to suggest, however, that an enormous amount of
time should be spent on every point. That will become ponderous and
the jurors will become bored. The lawyer must gauge the importance
of a particular point and assess what it will take to deliver that point
effectively to the jury. Above all, don’t hurry. Make the jury
understand the point since a misunderstood point is no point at all.
D. The Fourth
Commandment: Thou Shalt Lead the Witness (Usually)
Asking only leading
questions is perhaps the oldest rule of cross-examination. It is an old rule
because it is a good one. Leading questions are most effective
because they essentially allow the cross-examiner to testify and the witness to
ratify. The technique advances one of the important dynamics of the
courtroom -- control. Asking leading questions allows the
cross-examiner to be forceful, fearless, knowledgeable and
informative. Good things come from leading questions. So,
when permitted, lead, lead, and lead. Usually.
Be aware that leading
questions also can grow tiresome. No one likes to hear a hundred
questions in a row that end with, “is that correct?” The staccato
questioning of a witness can sometimes make the cross-examiner appear
overbearing and cold. Thus, when implementing this ironclad rule of
leading a witness on cross-examination, keep a few qualifying rules in mind as
well.
First, learn how to
lead the witness. Firing questions that begin with, “isn’t it
correct,” may remind the jurors of an FBI interrogation from an old
movie. A trial lawyer must search for ways to vary the
routine. For example, in an intersection collision case, a fact
witness might be called by the plaintiff to testify on several key points that
favor the plaintiff. Yet, the one point that favors the defendant is
the witness’s recollection that the stoplight was red. On
cross-examination, therefore, defense counsel might do the following:
Q. Isn’t
it correct that you were in a position to see whether the light was red or
green?
A. Yes.
Q. And
the light was red, isn’t that correct?
A. Yes.
In isolation, these
questions could effectively make the point. To make the point more
casually, however, and to bring the jury along for the ride, the cross-examiner
might do the following:
Q. As
you were driving down the road, I guess you were paying attention to the lights
ahead?
A. Yes.
Q. I
mean, as a careful driver, I assume one of the most important things you do is
look to see whether the light ahead is red or green?
A. Yes.
Q. And,
as you were heading down Grand Street that Friday afternoon, and I’m talking
especially about that afternoon, weren’t you paying attention as to whether the
lights ahead were red or green?
A. Yes.
Q. And
as you were driving down the road that day, was the light red or was it green?
A. It
was red.
Q. Is
there any doubt in your mind that the light was red on that day?
A. No.
Q. Pardon
me?
A. No,
there is no doubt in my mind.
These are all leading
questions, but not a single one contained the phrase, “is that correct,” or the
lawyer-like introduction, “isn’t it a fact . . .” Often, when
questioning witnesses who are not experienced testifiers, a kinder and
gentler style of asking leading questions is the most effective.
A second caution or
qualifying rule requires judgment in knowing when not to ask leading
questions. Sometimes a lawyer becomes so obsessed with controlling
the witness that every question becomes a leading question. This may
not be required. For example, when questioning a professional expert
on the stand, leading questions in certain areas are absolutely
unnecessary. Examples:
Q. Why
don’t you just tell the jury how many times you have testified in a court of
law?
Q. How
much money did you make last year testifying for plaintiffs’ attorneys around
the country?
Q. Of
the thousands of medical journals published around the world, tell the jury how
many you have asked to publish the opinions you have expressed in this
courtroom?
Q. How
long has it been since you last treated a patient?
And so
on. Often, it is best to have the answer come from the mouth of the
witness. A lawyer asks these non-leading questions because he or she
knows the answer and, if the witness waffles, the witness can be
impeached. The point is not that every question must be leading, but
that the expert is never afforded an opportunity to expound on a question of
critical importance. When reaching this goal, look for the
opportunity to use non-leading questions to break the monotony of repetitive
leading questions.
E. The Fifth
Commandment: Thou Shalt Know Thy Style and Adapt It to the Occasion
Good trial lawyers
develop their own comfortable styles. In this regard, it is
important to observe other trial lawyers; good trial lawyers are
impressive. It is a mistake, however, to mimic
them. Excellent trial lawyers come in many different
packages. Some are funny; some are very serious. Some
have booming voices; some speak softly. Some move around the
courtroom; some never become detached from the podium. Each trial
lawyer must do what is comfortable for him or her, following the old
adage: Be true to thyself.
Just as there are
effective points of style, however, there are also the negative. It
is effective to be aggressive on cross-examination; just don’t be a
jerk. Getting angry or losing one’s temper sometimes will imply that
the witness got the best of the cross-examination. Know the
difference between tough and mean, between confidence and arrogance, and
between control and dominance. The jury will know the difference if
the lawyer does not.
F. The Sixth
Commandment: Thou Shalt Know When to Quit
All lawyers have
experienced situations where they realize, half way through a cross-examination
outline, that the battle is over -- either everything has been done with a
particular witness, or there is little more that can be done. It is
either recognition of victory or acknowledgement of defeat. One of
the most difficult things for lawyers to do is to quit – to step away from the
limelight. Yet, effective counsel will stay attuned to how the
cross-examination is going as it is progressing. Adaptability is the
key. Things may go better than hoped, or things may grow hopelessly
worse. As the cross-examination proceeds, it is critical to stay
attuned to the courtroom atmosphere. How is the jury responding to
the performance? How is the judge responding? The best-laid
plans of even the best cross-examination should be modified as circumstances
dictate – even to the point of quitting.
Generally, there are two
times to quit. The first occurs when the witness has been
discredited or has made a monumental concession. There is no need
for overkill, and the jury may resent counsel if he or she maintains the charge
against the witness. Even worse, the witness may negotiate a
remarkable comeback. The second time to quit is when the witness is
killing the case or counsel. Trial lawyers generally are not steeped
in humility, and defeat ill becomes them. The tendency
is to keep fighting against all odds. Nevertheless, trial counsel
should have the judgment to admit defeat at the hands of a
witness. Occasionally, this result can be calculated before trial,
if the reputation or deposition performance of the witness suggests that few
points can be scored on cross-examination. Sometimes, unfortunately,
one learns this lesson under the bright lights of the courtroom.
This does not mean, however, that the lawyer staggers to counsel
table and sinks into the chair. Recall the scene in the movie, “My
Cousin Vinnie,” when one of the defense counsel inartfully attempted to
cross-examine a witness about his eyesight. Failing in the effort, counsel
retired to counsel table only to proclaim: “Whew, he is a tough
one.” Trial lawyers often
engage illusion. Make it appear that this witness
actually can support the case in some respect. Find some common
ground with the witness so that the witness can conclude the examination by
agreeing with counsel.
In this regard, imagine a case where a prescription drug is
alleged to have caused injury to the plaintiff. An extraordinarily qualified
medical expert has provided an opinion that the plaintiff’s injury was caused
by the medicine, and the expert cannot be moved from that causation
opinion. Within the limits of whatever latitude a judge might allow
on cross-examination, try to commit the expert to the following general points:
§ You will agree that prescription drugs are important to the health
of Americans
§ All medicines have side effects
§ Just because a medicine has side effects does not mean it should
not be marketed
§ The FDA balances the risks and benefits of every prescription
medicine in determining whether it should be marketed
§ Once the prescription medicine is marketed, the physician also
balances the risks and benefits in determining whether to prescribe the
medicine for a patient
§ The [prescription medicine at issue in the case] continues to be
available on the market
§ The FDA has never ordered it to be removed from the market
§ The FDA has never determined that this medicine should be unavailable
to patients in America
§ Indeed, physicians all over the country prescribe this medicine
for patients who need it
In this fashion, the
lawyer is driving home themes that support a defense of the pharmaceutical
manufacturer and getting an effective witness to make these
points. The cross-examination will conclude on a high note. Be
careful, however, so as not to allow a good witness to further damage the case
on re-direct by opening new avenues of inquiry on cross-examination.
G. The Seventh
Commandment: Thou Shalt Know What to Take to the Podium
Preparation is a good
thing, and developing a good cross-examination outline is very
useful. Yet, in the heat of the battle, being organized, effective
and quick to the point is critical. Some attorneys take volumes of
materials to the podium for cross-examination. Some come armed with
fifty-page cross-examination outlines. All of this is acceptable, if
the volume of materials is manageable. No matter how hard the lawyer
works on preparing cross-examination, however, surprise is
inevitable. The lawyer may want or need to pursue a line of
questioning that is out of order in the outline. An article, document or
transcript may be needed unexpectedly for impeachment. All of these
items must be accessible immediately. Fumbling around, shuffling
papers or searching for one’s place in an outline while the courtroom remains
eerily silent does not convey a positive image.
There are many solutions
to this problem, but the most important one is economy. Streamline
the cross-examination outline in order to move around easily, making those
points that are the most effective for the moment. Not every question need be
written out. This is cross-examination, not an oratory contest. The
jury will be able to tell the difference. Have the confidence to
work from a shorter outline, knowing that additional points can be made to fill
the gaps. If a lengthy cross-examination is anticipated, divide the
outline into discrete parts, using a three-ring binder and a tabbing
system. This will allow for a focus on the details within single
topics, minimizing the risk of getting lost.
Handling the impeachment
material also requires preparation and organization. Again, economy
is the key. Know the materials and have them readily
available. Combining these key materials into a collection of
“maybe” documents will interfere with the ability to find what is needed when
it is needed. Key materials should be cross-referenced within the
outline and organized in a series of folders to retrieve them
quickly. Having an assistant who thinks two steps ahead and follows
the outline may be the most efficient way to handle these materials.
Impeaching with prior
testimony also can be tricky since this requires some knowledge that an
impeachment opportunity exists. One must locate the impeaching
material and lay the foundation for use of that material. Finally, the
impeaching material must be used effectively. The paramount rule on
impeachment is this: use impeachment sparingly and only for telling
points. If an expert testifies at trial that he has been deposed
sixty-one times, but in his deposition he acknowledged sixty-two times, the
inconsistency usually is not worth the impeachment effort. With that
rule in mind, preparation for cross-examination should focus on those
concessions made by the witness in prior transcripts that are essential to the
case. Include these points in the outline and be sure the outline
tracks the precise question asked in the prior transcript. Then,
have the transcripts marked in order to access the impeaching portion
easily. Not every witness transcript needs to be at the podium,
however -- only those that will be used. The same rules apply for
any other impeaching material – whether published articles, statements on a web
site, letters or reports.
Now, a word about
paperless trials. Most trial lawyers are heeding the trend to place
materials in electronic form and eliminate paper in the
courtroom. That trend is likely to continue. With judges forcing
parties to use electronic media in the courtroom, defendants should be
concerned no longer about presenting a “high tech” case in most
venues. All parties will be required to do so. However,
the use of electronic media can be a blessing and a curse. It is a
blessing because it allows ready access to materials that are needed to
cross-examine a witness. Pushing the right button or waving a wand
over the right bar code produces what is needed. Yet the curse involves
learning how to handle this technology. All the necessary software
must be learned and loaded for every witness; the right materials must be
available instantly for the witness and the jury. This
requires practice. Once mastered, the presentation can be powerful and
even intimidating to an opposing witness. Find the software that is
“friendliest” and learn it. Use outside consultants if
necessary. Once the process is familiar and its utility realized,
lawyers will be inclined to use technology even if not required by the trial
judge.
H. The Eighth
Commandment: Thou Shalt Know Thy Audience
Consider a situation
where the examiner is masterful, the witness is bested on technical
points, and impeachment is accomplished with scientific
journals. The entire direct examination is facing destruction with
laser-like precision as the examiner bombards the witness with technical
questions. The problem? The jury has no idea what is
going on. This situation sometimes makes for a good appellate record,
but it makes for a bad trial result.
A gifted trial attorney
is able to reduce the technical to the simple without appearing to patronize
the jury. This is important in all phases of the trial, but it is
most important in cross-examination when counsel is attempting to undermine the
case of an opponent through the testimony of the opponent’s
witnesses. If the jury does not understand that an opponent has been
bested, time has been wasted. If counsel is moving laboriously
through technical points and boring the jury in the process, both time and
substance are lost. The jury will grow angry. There are
few truisms in the business of trying cases, but there is one: if the jury is
mad at counsel, the case is lost.
Effective trial lawyers
remember that the important audience is seated in the jury box. The
jury must understand the case. In particular, jurors must understand
the points being made on cross-examination. Yet again, this starts
with preparation. Decide beforehand what points are important to the
cause and whether they can be made effectively during
cross-examination. Sometimes it is simply not worth investing the
time and energy or invoking the jury’s tolerance to make technical points with
an adverse witness. Some of these points can be deferred until a
party’s own witness is on the stand.
If a point is worth
making on cross-examination, decide how best to make it. The jury
must understand the context of a given point. Use simple words in
simple sentences and reinforce points that are conceded by a
witness: “You said that it is standard practice to perform x-rays
under those circumstances. Is this something you learned in your
medical training?”
Be sure that when the
witness concedes a point, the jury understands the
advantage. Perhaps that involves some dramatic flair, if that is
counsel’s style -- a change in tone of voice, or movement from the
podium. Perhaps counsel did not hear the answer, or fears that the jury
did not, and asks the witness to repeat it. All of this involves
style and judgment. Most of all, however, it involves telling the
simple story to the jury.
Another effective way to
make points is to highlight them for the jury. Some judges will
allow counsel to enumerate key concessions on a flip chart or an Elmo. (Though
keep in mind that some judges do not). This can be an important way
for jurors to remember the points made. They hear the points, then
they see the points. Any time a point can be visually made or
recorded, do so. It allows counsel to relate back to this visual
point during closing argument, and it creates a more enduring cross-examination
memory for the jury. Demonstrative exhibits or other visual aids
generally make cross-examination more interesting, and the more interesting the
cross-examination, the more attention the jury will give it.
I. The Ninth
Commandment: Thou Shalt Know the Rules of Evidence
Much of
cross-examination is style and technique, but that is only
veneer. It is the substantive content that holds the case
together. Counsel must introduce EVIDENCE during cross-examination. The
admission of evidence requires a keen understanding of the rules of evidence
and how to argue them. The best-planned cross-examination will be
ineffective if counsel cannot navigate the rules of evidence.
The
starting point is to know the rules of evidence. That does not
involve reviewing law school notes from Evidence 101, or skimming through
Wigmore’s LAW OF EVIDENCE. It
means, however, that the rules of evidence must be read again. It means that
cases and articles must be reviewed. Generally, lawyers who are not
also law professors do not maintain encyclopedic recollection of the rules of
evidence. Yet these rules must be refreshed so that they can be
argued usefully.
In addition to this
general re-acquaintance, be sure to identify those rules that hold particular
importance to the trial. Different rules come into play in different
trials. Know well the ones that count. Anticipate
problems with the authenticity and admissibility of documents needed for
cross-examination. Be sure to contemplate an argument supporting the
admissibility of evidence important to every aspect of
cross-examination. Prepare trial briefs or motions in limine, and
raise problem areas in advance of cross-examination. Be sure the
cross-examination moves as seamlessly as possible. All of this
increases the chances of winning at trial. Failing that, it makes
for a good appellate record.
J. The Tenth
Commandment: Thou Shalt Know Thy Judge
Not all judges are
created equal. Some know the rules of evidence, but some do
not. Some are courteous and patient, and some are
not. Some will impose restrictions on cross-examination; some will
not. Before trying a case to an unfamiliar judge, find out about
that judge. Better yet, if there is time, observe the judge during a
jury trial. Talk to attorneys who have tried cases in front of the
particular judge, and otherwise gather information from every conceivable
source, seeking out detail.[6] Find
out how the judge enforces the rules of evidence, how documents can be used
during cross-examination, whether there are time restrictions, where counsel
must stand during cross-examination, whether the judge requires the witness to
answer specific questions with no elaboration, how documents are used with the
witness, and so forth. Knowing the peccadilloes of a particular
judge will provide a measure of comfort, allowing counsel to focus on important
substantive issues. If one’s cross-examination is disrupted by a
judge who is critical of perceived infractions, the pace and content of the
cross-examination will be disrupted. For defense lawyers,
this is a lesson that must be learned early in trial since cross-examination is
one of the more immediate events.
III.
CONCLUSION
Reverting to lessons
learned at the
outset: Practice. Practice. Practice. Keep
these commandments in mind until they become second nature. Once
comfortable with the technique of cross-examination, it is easier to
relax. Counsel will appear more confident, and the jury will sense
this confidence. Such confidence will make counsel more effective in
every phase of the trial and increase the chances of winning the case which,
after all, is the reason for this business.
ENDNOTES
[1] Perhaps
the late Irving Younger prepared the best-known version of the Ten Commandments
of Cross-examination. See Younger, The Art of
Cross-Examination, ABA Monograph Series No. 1 (ABA Section on Litigation
1976). Younger’s Ten Commandments are: (1) be brief; (2) use plain
words; (3) use only leading questions; (4) be prepared; (5) listen; (6) do not
quarrel; (7) avoid repetition; (8) disallow witness explanation; (9) limit
questioning; and (10) save the ultimate point for summation. These
are good general rules, but this article makes an effort to supplement
Younger’s commandments and build on them. Some overlap, though
minimal, is inevitable.
[2] The
risk of extensive preparation is the tendency to show the jury all that counsel
knows. That can lead to a lengthy, tedious cross-examination which
does not capture the attention of jurors. Preparation, therefore,
includes not just learning all that one can, but distilling the key points and
determining how to convey them.
[3] Internet
search engines are becoming more sophisticated and
far-reaching. Simply typing in the expert’s name in a search engine
may lead to a number of “hits” in various categories. These would
include news reports, published cases, administrative agency submissions, and
more.
[4] The
case in question was Anderson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Civ. No. H-95-003 (S.D.
Tex. 1998). The twenty-five-page opinion is not published, but it is
available from the author or from Gene Williams, an FDCC member who was also
involved in the Daubert hearing.
[5] An
ancillary advantage to having the witness provide the answer, rather than
supplying a sterile “yes” or “no” response, is to increase the odds that the
witness will appear evasive. If the question is buttressed with
accurate information, and the witness simply concedes the point, the witness
may appear candid and credible. Making the witness provide a more
narrative response to points that must be conceded may cause the witness to
omit or de-emphasize certain facts. The questioner then is placed in
the position of identifying the incomplete nature of the witness’s response,
perhaps leaving the impression with the jury that the witness is not a reliable
fact-giver. All of this must be keyed to the witness in
question. There are some witnesses who should be granted little
latitude on cross-examination.
[6] Increasingly,
trial judges are creating their own rules of courtroom behavior to supplement
the general provisions of court decorum in a particular
jurisdiction. Some of these provisions can be onerous, imposing time
limits on witness examination and otherwise restricting the courtroom latitude
of trial attorneys who have become accustomed to a more generous
approach. Some of these rules may affect what a trial attorney is
allowed to do on cross-examination.
(Author’s bio)
Timothy
A. Pratt is a trial attorney and partner in the firm of Shook, Hardy &
Bacon, L.L.P., based in Kansas City, Missouri. He received his J.D.
degree from Drake University Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the
Drake Law Review. Following graduation, Mr. Pratt clerked for the
Honorable Floyd R. Gibson, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit. Specializing in the defense of products
liability and toxic tort cases, Mr. Pratt has served as national and regional
trial counsel for several companies. He has tried cases to verdict
in numerous states, and he has served as a faculty member for the National
Institute of Trial Advocacy for nearly 20 years. Mr. Pratt is a
member of the Missouri, Texas and Iowa bar associations, and the Federation of
Defense & Corporate Counsel.