QUESTIONS

QUESTIONSPURPOSE OF QUESTIONINGIN 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 QUESTIONSTHERE 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 EXAMINATIONTHESE ARE QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOUR OWN WITNESSESPURPOSETHE PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTIONING IS TO HAVE THE WITNESS TELL THEIR STORY OF WHAT THEY KNOW, SAW OR HEARD.RESPONSIBILITYDESCRIPTIONS MUST COME FROM THE WITNESS.STYLEQUESTIONS 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 OCLOCK 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

STRATEGYHAVE THE WITNESS TELL THE WHOLE STORY. EMPHASIZE THE POINTS THAT WILL HELP YOUR CASE. MINIMIZE THOSE THAT WILL HURT YOUR CASE.ANTICIPATIONANTICIPATE HOW THEY WILL ATTEMPT TO HURT YOUR WITNESSS TESTIMONY IN CROSS-EXAMINATION. PREPARE QUESTIONS TO DEAL WITH THESE AHEAD OF TIME.CROSS-EXAMINATIONTHESE ARE QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOUR OPPONENTS WITNESSES

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

RESPONSIBILITYDESCRIPTIONS SHOULD COME FROM THE LAWYER WHO WILL VERIFY OR CHALLENGE INFORMATION FROM THE WITNESSSTYLEQUESTIONS 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 EXPLANATIONAVOID ASKING QUESTIONS THAT ALLOW THE WITNESS TO PROVIDE EXPLANATIONS. TRY TO AVOID WHY? QUESTIONS.EXAMPLES:Q: YOU ARE DETECTIVE RONNIE LODGE, CORRECT?A: YESQ: 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 DOESNT MAKE YOU THE MOST EXPERIENCED IN DEALING WITH THEFT NOW DOES IT?A: NO

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

ANTICIPATIONANTICIPATE HOW YOUR OPPONENT WILL PREPARE FOR YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. ALLOW FOR YES OR NO ANSWERS AND CONTROL THE WITNESSS RESPONSEKEY RULE OF QUESTIONINGNEVER 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 WITNESSESMURDER 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 IVE 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 KILLERWITNESS # 1 POLICE OFFICERQ: 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 BODYA: IT LOOKED LIKE THE VICTIM SUFFERED A MASSIVE HEAD INJURYQ: WHAT DID THE CORONERS REPORT SAY?A: THE VICTIM DIED OF A MASSIVE SKULL FRACTURE AND THAT DEATH WOULD HAVE BEEN IMMEDIATEWITNESS #2 FRIEND OF VICTIMQ: WHAT HAPPENED AFTER YOU REALIZED YOUR FRIEND HAD BEEN ATTACKEDA: I RAN AWAYQ: WHY WAS THATA: I WAS AFRAID I WAS GOING TO BE NEXTQ: DID YOU RETURN TO HELP YOUR FRIENDA: 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 ACCUSEDQ: YOU WERE INSIDE THE HOUSE THE WHOLE TIME, CORRECT?A: YESQ: AND YOU ADVISED YOUR FRIEND, NOT TO GO OUTSIDE, TO CALL THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY, CORRECT?A: YESQ: AND YOU DID NOT GO OUTSIDE AT ALL, EVEN WHEN YOU WERE TOLD WHAT HAPPENED, CORRECT?A: THAT IS CORRECT

WITNESS #4 - ACCUSEDQ: YOU SAY YOU ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE, CORRECT?A: YESQ: YOU MADE NO ATTEMPT TO TAMPER WITH THE BODY, CORRECT?A: YESQ: YOU DIDNT TRY TO COVER UP YOUR CRIME, CORRECT?A: YESQ: 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 DIDNT COME BACK AND YOUR FRIEND SAID HE NEVER WENT OUTSIDE, SO YOU MOVED THE BODY DIDNT YOU?A: NOQ: I GUESS IT MUST HAVE BEEN ELVES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT THEN!SCENARIO #2 USING YOUR OWN WITNESSESMURDER 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 CLIENTS 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 NURSEQ: PLEASE DESCRIBE THE VICTIMS AFFAIRA: SHE WAS HAVING AFFAIR WITH DR. SMITH. HE WAS QUITE UPSET WHEN SHE BROKE OFF THE AFFAIR.Q: HOW UPSET WAS HEA: REALLY ANGRY, HES A MAN WITH LOTS OF GAMBLING DEBTS AND SHE HAD LOTS OF MONEY. HE USED ME IN THE SAME WAY. HES A REAL SNAKE.Q: SO, DO YOU THINK HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANGRY ENOUGH TO TAKE REVENGE ON HERA: ABSOLUTELY. LIKE I SAID HES A REAL SNAKE. I WOULDNT PUT ANYTHING PAST HIM.Q: THANK YOU, I DONT THINK I HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. WELL, WAIT I DO HAVE A COUPLE MORE.Q: DIDNT DR. SMITH BREAK OFF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU BEFORE HIS AFFAIR WITH THE VICTIM?A: YESQ: YOU MUST HAVE BEEN REALLY UPSET AT BOTH OF THEMA: WELL, YESQ: IN FACT, YOU WERE REALLY UPSET WITH THE VICTIM WERENT YOU?A: NOQ: IN FACT, SO UPSET THAT YOU HAD REASON TO KILL HER YOURSELF. THATS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, WASNT IT? YOU KILLED HER, DIDNT YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.SCENARIO # 3 - DONT HOPE FOR ANSWERSA 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 DOGS NAME IS WHITEY, THE OTHER DOGS 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 CORRECTA: YESQ: AND THOSE DOGS ARE CALLED BLACKY AND WHITEY, CORRECT?A: YESQ: 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 BLONDEQ: THEN WHY DID YOU CALL THEM BLACKY AND WHITEY?A: I LIKE THE NAMES.SCENARIO #4 DONT ANTICIPATE ANSWERS, MANIPULATE ANSWERSA 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 QUESTIONQ: YOURE SEVENTEEN, CORRECT?A: YESQ: DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AN EXPERIENCED DRIVER? (AT THIS POINT, THE WITNESS CAN ONLY SAY YES OR NO)ANSWER #1: YESQ: REALLY, YOU ARE SEVENTEEN, YOU DONT HAVE A FULL G LICENCE YET, YOUVE ONLY BEEN DRIVING FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND YOU WANT THE JURY TO BELIEVE YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED DRIVER? REALLY?ANSWER #2: NOQ: OF COURSE NOT. YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE DRIVING EXPERIENCE. THANK YOU.SECOND SET-UP QUESTIONQ: 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: YESQ: 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: NOQ: OF COURSE NOT. IN FACT, NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE LITTLE EXPERIENCE DRINKING, YOU DONT FULLY KNOW THE EFFECTS THAT ALCOHOL HAS ON THE BODY DO YOU?

SET-UP QUESTION # 3Q: 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: YESQ: REALLY. THAT TELLS MY YOU DONT 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: NOQ: 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, DIDNT YOU. YOU, SIR, ARE A DANGER TO SOCIETY.

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