PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING IN A TRIAL, IT IS THE WITNESSES WHO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. THE ROLE OF THE LAWYERS IS TO PULL THE EVIDENCE FROM THE WITNESSES.

STYLES OF QUESTIONS THERE ARE TWO STYLES OF QUESTIONS: OPEN ENDED WHICH ALLOW FOR EXPLANATION AND DETAIL (EG. ESSAY QUESTION) CLOSED WHICH HAVE SPECIFIC ANSWERS (EG. MULTIPLE CHOICE, FILL IN THE BLANK, TRUE OR FALSE)

DIRECT EXAMINATION THESE ARE QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOUR OWN WITNESSES

PURPOSE THE PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTIONING IS TO HAVE THE WITNESS TELL THEIR STORY OF WHAT THEY KNOW, SAW OR HEARD.

RESPONSIBILITY DESCRIPTIONS MUST COME FROM THE WITNESS.

STYLE QUESTIONS MUST BE OPEN-ENDED. THE WITNESS TELLS AND EXPLAINS THEIR STORY.

EXAMPLES: Q: IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE COURT PLEASE? A: I AM POLICE OFFICER RONNIE LODGE, DETECTIVE #487

Q: CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE US A SUMMARY OF YOUR QUALIFICATIONS? A: I HAVE BEEN A POLICE OFFICER FOR 15 YEARS. I AM QUALIFIED AS A FINGERPRINT EXPERT. BEFORE THIS I INVESTIGATED LOST KITTENS AND DOGS

Q: WERE YOU ON DUTY ON MARCH 12, 1999? A: YES I WAS.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT? A: AT APPROXIMATELY 7 O’CLOCK I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM ANOTHER UNIFORMED OFFICER. THE CALL WAS ABOUT A POSSIBLE THEFT AT RIVERDALE HIGH SCHOOL. BECAUSE I ATTENDED THAT SCHOOL, I RESPONDED TO THE CALL

Q: WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU GOT TO THE SCHOOL? A: I MET WITH PRINCIPAL WEATHERBEE AND WAS TOLD THAT SOME COMPUTER ITEMS WERE MISSING

STRATEGY HAVE THE WITNESS TELL THE WHOLE STORY. EMPHASIZE THE POINTS THAT WILL HELP YOUR CASE. MINIMIZE THOSE THAT WILL HURT YOUR CASE.

ANTICIPATION ANTICIPATE HOW THEY WILL ATTEMPT TO HURT YOUR WITNESS’S TESTIMONY IN CROSS-EXAMINATION. PREPARE QUESTIONS TO DEAL WITH THESE AHEAD OF TIME.

CROSS-EXAMINATION THESE ARE QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOUR OPPONENT’S WITNESSES

PURPOSE THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING IS TO CHALLENGE THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT TO THE COURT THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS

RESPONSIBILITY DESCRIPTIONS SHOULD COME FROM THE LAWYER WHO WILL VERIFY OR CHALLENGE INFORMATION FROM THE WITNESS

STYLE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE CLOSED. IT IS THE LAWYER WHO PROVIDES THE INFORMATION FOR VERIFICATION.

BEST TYPE OF QUESTIONS WILL RESULT IN YES OR NO ANSWERS WITHOUT EXPLANATION

AVOID ASKING QUESTIONS THAT ALLOW THE WITNESS TO PROVIDE EXPLANATIONS. TRY TO AVOID “WHY?” QUESTIONS.

EXAMPLES: Q: YOU ARE DETECTIVE RONNIE LODGE, CORRECT? A: YES

Q: YOU HAVE FIFTEEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE CORRECT? A: YES

Q: YOU HAVE RECENTLY BECOME QUALIFIED AS A FINGERPRINT EXPERT, CORRECT? A: YES.

Q: AND BEFORE THEN YOU PRIMARILY INVESTIGATED LOST KITTENS AND DOGS, CORRECT? A: YES.

Q: CONSIDERING YOUR QUALIFICATIONS, THAT DOESN’T MAKE YOU THE MOST EXPERIENCED IN DEALING WITH THEFT NOW DOES IT? A: NO

STRATEGY REVIEW THE WHOLE STORY TOLD. EMPHASIZE THE POINTS THAT WILL HURT THEIR CASE. MINIMIZE THOSE THAT WILL HELP THEIR CASE.

ANTICIPATION ANTICIPATE HOW YOUR OPPONENT WILL PREPARE FOR YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. ALLOW FOR YES OR NO ANSWERS AND CONTROL THE WITNESS’S RESPONSE

KEY RULE OF QUESTIONING NEVER ASK A QUESTION TO WHICH YOU DO NOT ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER. ON DIRECT – THE ANSWER SHOULD BE SCRIPTED AND NOT A SURPRISE ON CROSS – DO NOT ANTICIPATE OR HOPE FOR ANSWERS, DIRECT THE WITNESS TO THE ANSWER YOU WANT. (YES OR NO SHOULD BE THE ONLY OPTION)

SCENARIO #1 – USING ALL WITNESSES MURDER CASE - A MAN IS ACCUSED OF MURDERING AN INTRUDER WITH A BASEBALL BAT. HIS STORY IS THAT HE WENT TO HIS SHED WHEN HE HEARD AN INTRUDER. HE THOUGHT HE HEARD A VOICE SAY I’VE GOT A GUN. THEN HE SWUNG HIS BAT IN A DARKENED GARAGE. WHEN HE REALIZED HE HIT SOMEONE, HE IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE POLICE. HE ARGUES HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENCE. YOUR STRATEGY IS TO PORTRAY THE ACCUSED AS A COLD-BLOODED KILLER

WITNESS # 1 – POLICE OFFICER Q: WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, WHAT DID YOU FIND? A: I FOUND A BODY LYING ABOUT 10 METERS FROM THE SHED. Q: WHAT DID YOU NOTICE ABOUT THE BODY A: IT LOOKED LIKE THE VICTIM SUFFERED A MASSIVE HEAD INJURY Q: WHAT DID THE CORONER’S REPORT SAY? A: THE VICTIM DIED OF A MASSIVE SKULL FRACTURE AND THAT DEATH WOULD HAVE BEEN IMMEDIATE

WITNESS #2 – FRIEND OF VICTIM Q: WHAT HAPPENED AFTER YOU REALIZED YOUR FRIEND HAD BEEN ATTACKED A: I RAN AWAY Q: WHY WAS THAT A: I WAS AFRAID I WAS GOING TO BE NEXT Q: DID YOU RETURN TO HELP YOUR FRIEND A: ARE YOU CRAZY, I TOLD YOU I WAS AFRAID I WAS GOING TO BE NEXT. I WENT HOME AND TOLD MY PARENTS.

WITNESS #3 – FRIEND OF THE ACCUSED Q: YOU WERE INSIDE THE HOUSE THE WHOLE TIME, CORRECT? A: YES Q: AND YOU ADVISED YOUR FRIEND, NOT TO GO OUTSIDE, TO CALL THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY, CORRECT? A: YES Q: AND YOU DID NOT GO OUTSIDE AT ALL, EVEN WHEN YOU WERE TOLD WHAT HAPPENED, CORRECT? A: THAT IS CORRECT

WITNESS #4 - ACCUSED Q: YOU SAY YOU ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE, CORRECT? A: YES Q: YOU MADE NO ATTEMPT TO TAMPER WITH THE BODY, CORRECT? A: YES Q: YOU DIDN’T TRY TO COVER UP YOUR CRIME, CORRECT? A: YES

Q: BUT THE BODY WAS FOUND 10 METERS FROM THE SHED. THE POLICE OFFICER TESTIFIED THAT THE BODY WOULD HAVE BEEN DEAD ON IMPACT, THE FRIEND TESTIFIED HE RAN STRAIGHT HOME AND DIDN’T COME BACK AND YOUR FRIEND SAID HE NEVER WENT OUTSIDE, SO YOU MOVED THE BODY DIDN’T YOU? A: NO Q: I GUESS IT MUST HAVE BEEN ELVES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT THEN!

SCENARIO #2 – USING INFORMATION THAT IS NOT DIRECTLY STATED MURDER CASE – A STORE OWNER IS ACCUSED OF MURDERING TWO BOYS WHO HAVE ENTERED HIS/HER STORE. WHILE S/HE ADMITS TO SHOOTING THE TWO, S/HE CLAIMS THAT SHE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENCE. THE TWO BOYS HAD A HISTORY OF ASSAULTING THE STORE OWNER AND S/HE CLAIMS THAT S/HE WAS CONFRONTED THAT NIGHT BY ONE OF THE BOYS WIELDING A KNIFE.

DEFENSE WITNESS # 1 – THE STORE OWNER’S SPOUSE. Q: AND YOU CLAIM THAT AFTER THE ASSAULT, YOU AND YOUR SPOUSE DECIDED TO PURCHASE A GUN FOR SELF-PROTECTION, CORRECT? A: THAT IS CORRECT? Q: AND BEING THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS YOU ARE, WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT YOU PURCHASED THE GUN LEGALLY? A. CORRECT (BE PREPARED FOR ANOTHER LINE OF QUESTIONING IF THEY ANSWER NO)

Q: JUST TO BE CLEAR, AS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, YOU WANT US TO BELIEVE YOU ACTED IN A LEGAL MANNER? A: CORRECT Q: SO, YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU ACTED IN A PERFECTLY AND LEGALLY CORRECT MANNER WITH REGARDS TO THE PURCHASE AND HANDLING OF THE GUN (A LOADED QUESTION) A: CORRECT

DEFENSE WITNESS # 2 – THE ACCUSED Q: YOU STATED THAT YOU ACTED IN SELF- DEFENSE, CORRECT? A: YES Q: YOU DIDN’T PRE-PLAN THE SHOOTING, CORRECT? A: YES Q: THERE WAS NO INTENT AHEAD OF TIME TO KILL THE BOYS, CORRECT A: YES

Q: THIS CONFIRMS THE STATEMENT OF YOUR SPOUSE THAT YOU ACTED LEGALLY, CORRECT? A: YES Q: SO, WHEN YOU WERE CONFRONTED BY THE BOYS, YOU ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE WHEN YOU REACHED UNDER THE COUNTER, PULLED OUT THE GUN AND SHOT THE BOYS, CORRECT? A: YES

Q: AND THAT GUN WAS PURCHASED LEGALLY, CORRECT A: CORRECT Q: AND AS YOUR SPOUSE STATED, YOU ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, REGARDING THE GUN, CORRECT A: YES Q: HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN STATEMENT, JUST NOW, YOU REACHED UNDER THE COUNTER TO RETRIEVE THE GUN

A: CORRECT Q: AND YOU SHOT THE BOYS IN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO A DIRECT AND IMMINENT THREAT, CORRECT A: YES Q: THIS MEANS THERE WAS NO TIME TO LOAD THE GUN IN THE FACE OF THIS THREAT, CORRECT A: YES

Q: THIS MEANS THE GUN MUST HAVE BEEN PRE- LOADED, CORRECT A: YES Q: WHICH VIOLATES THE LAWS REGARDING GUN USE, CORRECT, THAT A GUN AND ITS BULLETS MUST BE STORED SEPARATELY, CORRECT A: ANSWER MIGHT BE YES OR NO TO THIS ONE, DOESN’T MATTER

Q: WHEN PURCHASING A GUN, LEGALLY, IT IS MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THE GUN AND BULLETS MUST BE STORED SEPARATELY AND AS LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FOLLOW THE LAW, CORRECT A: ANSWER DOESN’T MATTER NOW Q: YET THE GUN WAS CLEARLY LOADED, IN ANTICIPATION OF ITS USE AND YOU WERE PLANNING TO USE IT, WEREN’T YOU

SCENARIO # 3 - DON’T HOPE FOR ANSWERS A YOUTH IS CHARGED WITH IMPAIRED DRIVING. YOUR DEFENSE IS THAT A SWERVE IN THE ROAD IS CAUSED BY A DOG RUNNING OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. A MAN HAD BEEN WALKING HIS TWO DOGS LATE AT NIGHT. ONE DOG’S NAME IS WHITEY, THE OTHER DOG’S NAME IS BLACKY. YOU WANT THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT BLACKY RAN OUT AND THAT IT COULD HAVE DISTRACTED THE DRIVER LATE AT NIGHT.

Q: YOU HAVE TWO DOGS CORRECT A: YES Q: AND THOSE DOGS ARE CALLED BLACKY AND WHITEY, CORRECT? A: YES Q: WHAT COLOUR ARE THOSE DOGS? (YOU ARE HOPING THE WITNESS SAYS BLACK AND WHITE, THE FACT SHEETS ONLY MENTIONS THEIR NAMES)

A: LIGHT BROWN, ALMOST BLONDE Q: THEN WHY DID YOU CALL THEM BLACKY AND WHITEY? A: I LIKE THE NAMES.

SCENARIO #4 –SETTING UP WITNESSES A DOCTOR IS ACCUSED OF MURDERING HIS WIFE. THERE ARE NO WITNESSES AND HIS ALIBI IS WEAK. HIS WIFE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH HIS BEST FRIEND, ALSO A DOCTOR. HER BEST FRIEND IS A NURSE WHOSE OLD BOYFRIEND IS THE ONE WHO WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH THE DOCTOR’S WIFE. SHE ACTS AS A WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE. THE DEFENSE STRATEGY IS TO IDENTIFY OTHER SUSPECTS.

CROWN WITNESS #1 – THE POLICE OFFICE Q: YOU CAME TO AN EARLY CONCLUSION THAT THE DOCTOR WAS THE SOLE SUSPECT DID YOU NOT? A: YES. Q: YOU DIDN’T EVEN CONSIDER THE DOCTOR’S BEST FRIEND, WHO WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH HIS WIFE, DID YOU? A: NO Q: IF SHE WERE TO BREAK OFF THE RELATIONSHIP, THAT WOULD LIKELY HAVE MADE HIM ANGRY, DON’T YOU THINK?

A: POSSIBLY Q: ANGRY ENOUGH TO WANT TO KILL HER, ISN’T THAT POSSIBLE? A. MAYBE Q: WOULDN’T THAT MAKE HIM ANOTHER SUSPECT? YES OR NO?

CROWN WITESS #2 – THE BOYFRIEND OF THE DECEASED Q: YOU WERE HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH DR. KIMBALL’S WIFE, WERE YOU NOT? A: YES Q: SHE TOLD YOU OF HER PLANS TO BREAK OFF THE RELATIONSHIP, DIDN’T SHE? A: YES, BUT I DON’T THINK SHE MEANT IT. Q: YOU ARE IN A BIT OF A FINANCIAL MESS ARENT’ YOU A: YES

Q: SHE PAID FOR MANY OF YOUR BILLS DIDN’T SHE? A: YES Q: SO YOU WOULD HAVE HAD GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO BE UPSET AT HER, GOOD ENOUGH TO KILL HER, WOULDN’T YOU? A: NO Q: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS

DEFENSE WITNESS #1 Q: TELL US ABOUT DR. SMITH’S RELATIONSHIP WITH MRS. KIMBALL A: (THE RESPONSES SHOW THE RELATIONSHIP, WITH A PURPOSE OF POINTING AT DR. SMITH AS A SECOND POSSIBLE SUSPECT – BUT IF YOU CAN GET EVEN MORE SUSPECTS, THIS WEAKENS THE CROWN CASE FURTHER) Q: SO YOU THINK DR. SMITH HAD REASON ENOUGH TO KILL MRS. KIMBALL A: YES

Q: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS (YOU WALK AWAY SLOWLY, THEN TURN AROUND). ACTUALLY JUST A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. WERE YOU UPSET WHEN DR. SMITH BROKE HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU? A: YES, WHO WOULDN’T Q: HOW DID YOU FEEL WHEN YOU FOUND OUT THAT HE DUMPED YOU FOR YOUR BEST FRIEND? A. REALLY UPSET

Q. UPSET ENOUGH TO FEEL BETRAYED? A: YES, VERY MUCH SO Q: WHO WERE YOU UPSET WITH? A. SMITH Q: WHAT ABOUT MRS. KIMBALL A: HER TOO Q: UPSET ENOUGH EVEN TO KILL HER? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

SCENARIO #5 –DON’T ANTICIPATE ANSWERS, MANIPULATE ANSWERS A SEVENTEED YEAR OLD IS CHARGED WITH IMPAIRED DRIVING. HE IS DRIVING FRIEND FROM A PARTY. HE INSISTS THAT HE WAS NOT IMPAIRED. HE INSISTS HE SWERVED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT TO AVOID HITTING A DOG.

FIRST SET-UP QUESTION Q: YOU’RE SEVENTEEN, CORRECT? A: YES Q: DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AN EXPERIENCED DRIVER? (AT THIS POINT, THE WITNESS CAN ONLY SAY YES OR NO)

ANSWER #1: YES Q: REALLY, YOU ARE SEVENTEEN, YOU DON’T HAVE A FULL G LICENCE YET, YOU’VE ONLY BEEN DRIVING FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND YOU WANT THE JURY TO BELIEVE YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED DRIVER? REALLY?

ANSWER #2: NO Q: OF COURSE NOT. YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE DRIVING EXPERIENCE. THANK YOU.

SECOND SET-UP QUESTION Q: AS A SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD, DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AN EXPERIENCED DRINKER? (AGAIN, AT THIS POINT, THE WITNESS CAN ONLY SAY YES OR NO)

ANSWER #1: YES Q: REALLY, YOU ARE SEVENTEEN, TWO YEARS UNDER THE LEGAL DRINKING AGE IN THIS PROVINCE AND YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AN EXPERIENCED DRINKER. SEEMS TO ME YOU HAVE A PROBLEM YOUNG MAN.

ANSWER #2: NO Q: OF COURSE NOT. IN FACT, NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE LITTLE EXPERIENCE DRINKING, YOU DON’T FULLY KNOW THE EFFECTS THAT ALCOHOL HAS ON THE BODY DO YOU?

SET-UP QUESTION # 3 Q: DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE AN EXPERIENCED DRINKER AND DRIVER? (ONCE AGAIN, AT THIS POINT, THE WITNESS CAN ONLY SAY YES OR NO)

ANSWER #1: YES Q: REALLY. THAT TELLS MY YOU DON’T REALLY CARE IF YOU DRINK AND DRIVE. THIS IN FACT SOMETHING YOU DO QUITE REGULARLY, AS A SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD. I SUGGEST YOU ARE A DANGER TO SOCIETY YOUNG MAN.

ANSWER #2: NO Q: OF COURSE NOT. IN FACT, YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE CLUE ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF DRINKING ON DRIVING. YOU TOOK A RISK WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO PROPERLY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE. YOU PUT PEOPLE AT RISK BECAUSE OF YOUR ACTIONS, DIDN’T YOU. YOU, SIR, ARE A DANGER TO SOCIETY.

SET-UP QUESTION #4 ASKING THE WHY QUESTION WHEN YOU KNOW THERE IS NO REAL RESPONSE. Q: YOU KNOW THE DANGERS OF DRINKING AND DRIVING, CORRECT? A: YES Q: THEN WHY DID YOU DRINK AND DRIVE THAT NIGHT?!