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 YOUR OWN WITNESSES MURDER CASE – A DOCTOR IS ACCUSED OF MURDERING HIS WIFE. HE FINDS OUT SHE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH ANOTHER DOCTOR. A CHARACTER WITNESS FOR THE ACCUSED IS A NURSE WHO TESTIFIES TO YOUR CLIENT’S GOOD BEHAVIOUR. SHE ALSO HAD AN AFFAIR WITH THE OTHER DOCTOR AND IMPLIES THAT HE COULD ALSO BE A SUSPECT. THERE WERE NO WITNESSES TO THE CRIME. YOUR STRATEGY IS TO POINT OUT OTHER POSSIBLE SUSPECTS.

DEFENSE WITNESS # 1 – THE NURSE Q: PLEASE DESCRIBE THE VICTIM’S AFFAIR A: SHE WAS HAVING AFFAIR WITH DR. SMITH. HE WAS QUITE UPSET WHEN SHE BROKE OFF THE AFFAIR. Q: HOW UPSET WAS HE A: REALLY ANGRY, HE’S A MAN WITH LOTS OF GAMBLING DEBTS AND SHE HAD LOTS OF MONEY. HE USED ME IN THE SAME WAY. HE’S A REAL SNAKE.

Q: SO, DO YOU THINK HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANGRY ENOUGH TO TAKE REVENGE ON HER A: ABSOLUTELY. LIKE I SAID HE’S A REAL SNAKE. I WOULDN’T PUT ANYTHING PAST HIM. Q: THANK YOU, I DON’T THINK I HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. … WELL, WAIT I DO HAVE A COUPLE MORE.

Q: DIDN’T DR. SMITH BREAK OFF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU BEFORE HIS AFFAIR WITH THE VICTIM? A: YES Q: YOU MUST HAVE BEEN REALLY UPSET AT BOTH OF THEM A: WELL, YES Q: IN FACT, YOU WERE REALLY UPSET WITH THE VICTIM WEREN’T YOU?

A: NO Q: IN FACT, SO UPSET THAT YOU HAD REASON TO KILL HER YOURSELF. THAT’S WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, WASN’T IT? YOU KILLED HER, DIDN’T YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

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 –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?!