Comments on: Your Cross-Examination Could Be Better, Correct?!? http://www.trialtheater.com/wordpress/trial-skills/cross-examination/your-cross-examination-could-be-better-correct/ Trial lawyers, discover how to persuade jurors and win your next jury trial. You will learn valuable tips for improving your jury selection, opening statement, direct examination, cross-examination, and closing arguments. Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:33:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Jack http://www.trialtheater.com/wordpress/trial-skills/cross-examination/your-cross-examination-could-be-better-correct/comment-page-1/#comment-10458 Jack Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:18:21 +0000 http://www.trialtheater.com/wordpress/?p=95#comment-10458 I agree with the author. People remember what they hear first and last. If you ask, "John is with you?" that's all the jury hears--that's what they remember. On the other hand, if you ask, "John was with you, correct?" or even worse, "John was with you, isn't that correct?" then the last words the jury hears are semantically null. Why do that to yourself? As for emphasis, there are better ways than tag lines to add it. Sometimes I do add, "Wasn't it? Wasn't he? Isn't it?" at the end, or whatever goes with the question, e.g. "And John was with you, wasn't he!" or "That's *exactly* what it says, isn't it?" Finally, regarding "stupid" witnesses, no one will seriously doubt you're asking a question if your voice rises at the end. That's how people talk in everyday life. If the jury knows you're asking a question, and the witness is too stupid to figure it out, then, well, your opponent's witness has just slipped a bit in their estimation. I agree with the author. People remember what they hear first and last. If you ask, “John is with you?” that’s all the jury hears–that’s what they remember. On the other hand, if you ask, “John was with you, correct?” or even worse, “John was with you, isn’t that correct?” then the last words the jury hears are semantically null. Why do that to yourself?

As for emphasis, there are better ways than tag lines to add it. Sometimes I do add, “Wasn’t it? Wasn’t he? Isn’t it?” at the end, or whatever goes with the question, e.g. “And John was with you, wasn’t he!” or “That’s *exactly* what it says, isn’t it?”

Finally, regarding “stupid” witnesses, no one will seriously doubt you’re asking a question if your voice rises at the end. That’s how people talk in everyday life. If the jury knows you’re asking a question, and the witness is too stupid to figure it out, then, well, your opponent’s witness has just slipped a bit in their estimation.

]]> By: Philly http://www.trialtheater.com/wordpress/trial-skills/cross-examination/your-cross-examination-could-be-better-correct/comment-page-1/#comment-7257 Philly Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:49:17 +0000 http://www.trialtheater.com/wordpress/?p=95#comment-7257 I know people who talk like that in real life, using taglines in everyday conversation, and they all come across as jerks. While making every question sound mistrustful and contemptuous might be good in some situations, experience has shown that it's easier just to be more straightforward. I know people who talk like that in real life, using taglines in everyday conversation, and they all come across as jerks. While making every question sound mistrustful and contemptuous might be good in some situations, experience has shown that it’s easier just to be more straightforward.

]]> By: Jahangir Ali http://www.trialtheater.com/wordpress/trial-skills/cross-examination/your-cross-examination-could-be-better-correct/comment-page-1/#comment-6991 Jahangir Ali Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:36:24 +0000 http://www.trialtheater.com/wordpress/?p=95#comment-6991 I disagree that the 'taglines', as they have been called in this section, should be edited from questions in cross examination. Whilst it's OK to drop them, equally, you don't lose anything by adding them. To the contrary, adding these tag lines adds emphasis to the question, and if they come (in varied form) in question after question, I think it adds drama to the dialogue which aids memory and gives a greater sense of significance to the question. I've been a trial lawyer for about 3-4 years, and I mix my questions up - some with taglines, and some without. And sometimes, you do get enormously stupid witnesses who, unless the question is in standard form (with tagline) will still not understand that a question has been put to them! I disagree that the ‘taglines’, as they have been called in this section, should be edited from questions in cross examination. Whilst it’s OK to drop them, equally, you don’t lose anything by adding them. To the contrary, adding these tag lines adds emphasis to the question, and if they come (in varied form) in question after question, I think it adds drama to the dialogue which aids memory and gives a greater sense of significance to the question.

I’ve been a trial lawyer for about 3-4 years, and I mix my questions up – some with taglines, and some without. And sometimes, you do get enormously stupid witnesses who, unless the question is in standard form (with tagline) will still not understand that a question has been put to them!

]]>