Video: Maximizing Inconsistent Statements in Cross-Examination
A good prior inconsistent statement is supposed to be the “Holy Grail” of cross-examination techniques. Unfortunately, many cross-examinations fall upon deaf ears because the trial lawyer doesn’t do an effective job of building up the importance of the prior inconsistent statement. In this quick video, you’ll learn how to maximize the impeachment power of your prior inconsistent statements.
Please take a moment to leave a comment below and let me know what you think about the video. Also, please let me know what topics you’d like to learn about in future training videos, so I can help you win your next jury trial.
LegalScholar said
am March 24 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Thanks for the free courtroom presentation tips! The reminder about locking down the witness before attempting any type of impeachment is invaluable. Too bad I had to learn that lesson the hard way!
Any chance of seeing videos about how to improve direct examination? My examinations always feel a little “dry” — I’m wondering if there’s a better way to grab the jury’s attention.
Robert said
am March 24 2008 @ 10:09 pm
Here’s my suggestion for an upcoming video: How to shorten opening statements. Jurors seem to lose interest when an opening drags on and on (and on). How can you shorten an opening statement without omitting important information?
Thanks for the great tips in your newsletter - they’ve been invaluable in my trials!
Anthony said
am March 24 2008 @ 11:21 pm
I like that this has a step that I haven’t read (or remember reading) in a few other trial ad books, namely, making sure that the jury understands that the witness was prepared to make the earlier statement, and was not “ambushed.”
Thanks for your helpful weekly advice! I just got the Complete system, and I think its excellent.
Bennet said
am March 25 2008 @ 4:53 am
I learnt more from your newsletters and video that i feel that all my law lecturers taught me just crap and impratical stuff.
I prefer your video as all of my family hears and relish them that it makes law interesting.
Keep up the good work of your video teaching.
mark said
am March 25 2008 @ 8:47 am
I wondering if when you commit the witness to the statement he’s just testified to and then you go thru the importance, preparation, etc… of the prior inconsis. statement - does it lose something because it starts getting too far from the original statement. It almost seems if you qualify it too much, the jury loses, or rather the impact is lost because the orig. statement was mentioned (ie. ten minutes ago). Not sure if this makes sense, but I’m trying to say that if you have too much qualifing stuff in the middle - the impact on the jury could be lost by the time you say, “isn’t it a fact you testified then, that the light was green.” Hope this makes sense. Not sure if this is a valid pt. or not.
Jack Gilley said
am March 25 2008 @ 9:23 am
As a greenhorn in the trial arena, it feels a little presumptious for me to say this is great, but it does seem to be, and seems to me that it will be very helpful to me going forward. I plan to revisit it this evening. Mock trial video demonstrations on important, make that all, elements of the trial would also be most worthwhile.
Thanks,
Jack
Rick said
am March 25 2008 @ 10:39 am
I liked that you mentioned the whole “were you lying then or are you lying now” issue. A lot of my associates love to bully witnesses with that, but I think it takes away from their cross in a couple of ways, first being that it can lead a jury to sympathize with a witness if the cross is unnecessarily harsh or demeaning, and second is the classic issue of “one question too many”. It has been my experience that you need to let the jury make the final leap of logic, to allow them to feel that they’ve come to the conclusion on their own, and not that you’ve led them to it. Stopping after you establish the credibility of the prior inconsistent statement without trying to pin the witness with “one question too many” allows the jury to make that final leap and you to have a field day during closing. Good stuff, Elliott.
jang said
am March 25 2008 @ 9:56 pm
What if the witness anticipates what’s coming (his atty coached him well) and he says that he wasn’t prepared when he made the prior statement?
Robin said
am March 25 2008 @ 10:14 pm
I am a 20 year criminal defense attoney trying to “cross over” into personal injury. I wouldn’t mind seeing some tips on how to ask a jury for money in summation. I practice in nj where you can’t ask for a dollar amount.Also, when a witness refuses to answer your qustion and has his own agenda, how to get him to answer your question and not his own.
Steve Feldman said
am March 26 2008 @ 11:32 am
Very helpful. Good demonstrations.
robbyn said
am March 29 2008 @ 3:13 pm
I have been enjoying your tips/techniques. I especially liked this expanded technique on PIS - I am a criminal defense atty and there is almost always the oppty to deal w/ PIS in cross, especially w/ LEOs whose only recollection is their written reports. This makes the locking in of depo testimony easy, but they are well coached on “wiggling” on the stand. This was a particularly helpful session. Keep them coming!
AT said
am March 31 2008 @ 8:41 am
Clear and well-presented. I could have used this a few months ago before a few trials and motions. A specific one on pinning down a cop would be even more helpful for us criminal defense lawyers.
Thank you.
JOHN CLIFFORD said
am April 1 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Just a quick thank you. I think this video was a terrific idea that helps supplement the trial advocacy materials I recently purchased from you.
Keep up the good work.
Kamren said
am April 30 2008 @ 8:28 pm
I really enjoy the video commentary. Those aspiring to be trial-lawyers can learn a lot of practical stuff from you, which are never covered in the usual law books. Nothing beats experience. It is the best teacher.
J.J. LaPlace said
am May 16 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Very informative and helpful. Would like to see more cross-examination techniques in the future.
Bob said
am June 8 2008 @ 6:59 am
Thanks. I wished I’d known this when I was a public defender. Two problems I never thought we solved in that office: 1- try as we might, we could never get enough jury panel members struck to get what we thought were fair juries- practically all the panelists hated sex offenders and would do anything they could to give them the shaft. 2- psychiatrists’ reports regularly came in to prove the doctor’s diagnosis of our client’s mental illness, that report included police and prison records with lurid details of the crime that were highly prejudicial, but neither the trial judge nor any of the first-level appellate judges would ever rule in our favor on any of this
Ted King said
am July 13 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Re: inconsistent statements. The lock down was well put and well received. It is a point often overlooked. Thank you. Ted