The Most Important Cross Examination Question (Don't forget this!!!)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- There's one cross examination question that you should ALWAYS ask! In this short video, I break down a powerful cross examination technique that you should bring to the courtroom and explain how to cross examine a witness with it.
Remember -- the purpose of cross examination is to nuke the other side's direct examination while simultaneously telling your client's story. This cross examination example will show you how to do that.
Watch the video to check out this cross examination tip!
_____________________________________________________________________
Law Venture's Most Popular Courses:
➡️ Trial Ad Academy: lawventure.com/courses/trial-...
➡️ PI Playbook: lawventure.com/courses/person...
➡️ Case Binder Blueprint: lawventure.com/courses/case-b...
_____________________________________________________________________
⭐ FREE DOWNLOADS⭐
✅ Objection Cheat Sheet: bit.ly/2ufpAXw
✅ Mini E-book: 10-Step Formula for the Perfect Opening Statement: bit.ly/2uUCQ3X
_____________________________________________________________________
Check out this blog post for extra insight: bit.ly/2TAP0Jn
If you have any questions, then please don't hesitate to ask! Be sure to subscribe and you can follow me at:
Instagram: bit.ly/2Mz3neS
Twitter (New!): bit.ly/2JKIBew
Facebook: bit.ly/2HU6L0o
Personal Website: JarrettStone.com
_____________________________________________________________________
Now the boring stuff:
This is not legal advice. This content and all of Law Venture's content is for informational purposes only. You should contact your attorney to obtain legal advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship of any kind.
This question gave me chills. I was like. Dang I'm using that
Glad it can help!
Mufasa
i used this question on my wife and when i came back from work there was poop in my bed
Question. Can a lawyer stipulate to facts not readily proved? Like of someone charged with accessory before the fact to murder, goes to trial by himself without the murder being proved and without the principal also present at trial because the principal was unable to be tried at the time because he was being evaluated to see if he was incompetent to stand trial so there was no conviction of the actual murder at the time the other guy went to trial for the accessory before the fact to murder charge. Was lawyer highly ineffective for stipulating to murder just so the State was now able to go forward with the trial against the one charged with the accessory before the fact to murder charge? This is a question no one seems to have the answer to. Thank you!
😆😂
“So that’s the decision you decided to make?”
This is great! Cross-examination is definitely something you must master if you are a litigator.
Im going to use it during depo
Something I didn't think of,
That was great advice 👍
The latest witness I had did end up admitting in a odd way but anyway to
"Blaming the girl/victim" for crimes that he committed,
Which is a common tactic of criminals to point the finger at someone else to take the heat off themselves.
Super helpful advice for a self-representing litigant dealing with deceitful witnesses.
Glad you found it helpful!
May I have ur email please
May I have your email please
Thank you very much for your advice and help
I have traffic court trial soon. Thanks for the tips. Representing myself
Ive spent the the last 5 years an over 100k in court with my X as shes tired to get custody of our now 8 year old daughter, her new boyfriend has way more $ than me to , but after a little over 5 years and
2 separate custody attempts
an my 4 shity lawyers,
your videos an me as my childs lawyer an by the way im not an attorney,
im just not the pos drug addict an abusive parent , that constantly gets caught in lies an disobeys every state guideline an court order !
Your awsome man an ive watched an read so much over the years an honesty i feel like you have helped me more than 4 lawyers an over 100k spent ! How much do i owe you bro ?
LoL cause your worth every dime !
I’m humbled by the kind words! 🙌
Question. Can a lawyer stipulate to facts not readily proved? Like of someone charged with accessory before the fact to murder, goes to trial by himself without the murder being proved and without the principal also present at trial because the principal was unable to be tried at the time because he was being evaluated to see if he was incompetent to stand trial so there was no conviction of the actual murder at the time the other guy went to trial for the accessory before the fact to murder charge. Was lawyer highly ineffective for stipulating to murder just so the State was now able to go forward with the trial against the one charged with the accessory before the fact to murder charge? This is a question no one seems to have the answer to. Thank you!
Hi, my question is; Can the accuser or the complainant or witness not be in court, for preliminary examination
I want to get prepared to up coming family jury trail
I can see how that question could hit at the credibility of a witness who had a some type of role in the issue. But, if you’re cross examining a witness that is being used to establish a timeline or to testify only to what they saw or heard, this question seems irrelevant. You want to introduce something that contradicts their statement or attack their assertion of being accurate and positive of what they saw or what time/how long something took place.
Considering the fact he has a bunch of Lawyers on here indeed perhaps he should of made it's useage more obvious (been exhausting my derailed) but for the laymen I feel it's useage is quite clear.
This is actually a very good closure question in cross!
Glad you think so!
Actually wish to Thank God for this video....
Wisdom combined with strength = POWER
Your “question” is a declarative statement. Questions begin with who, what, where, when, why, how or with a helping verb.
That's a statement
Interesting
This question strikes me as a dirty lawyer trick. The witness is forced to agree, thus making it sound like he made more of a conscious decision than perhaps he did. We all make 1000's of decisions per day.
so rephrasing a "why" question about motive into a leading question?
will it be risky not using a leading question for this?
How about
You did x didnt you? ( x ?was already asked& confirmed).
THEN - ISNT IT TRUE... YOU MADE THE CHOICE TO... DO X EVEN THO
I can see the utility of this question in some circumstances, but I think it is being too broadly prescribed. I’m a defense witness in a case where the defendant has been falsely accused by a lunatic with a questionable relationship to the prosecutor. I would be happy to answer this, and it won’t help the prosecutor’s case in the slightest.
Isn't the point of cross to only ask yes/no questions you already know the answer to? The word 'so' invites an explanation you don't know the answer to.
Still a yes or no question.
Leading ?'s
Ask ur own witness Non leading ?'s
There is a criminal case against me, but I won the case. Because there was no witness or accused person. And now another prosecutor reauthorized the case and still there is unknown accused person or complainant! Because the court record does not contain any information for the accused person or the complainant and who is this person, only a name on the case papers for a person, and there is no information in the court record of who he is, an address or photo identification.
Please what can I do against this fake case
Thank you very much
Can we get a live example?
Pls?
You should say the 1st nature of cross examination is a leading question
Haha that’s for another video
Im doing a mock trial for homeschool this year...and I got picked to be cross-examination. #ChallengB #CC
Yess! I'm doing Challenge B this year! And mock trial is coming up on a couple weeks! 😬
Hey!! It’s a lot of fun! I so would do it again. Good luck.
Hope your short story is coming together as well.
@@kaleabond8985 Thank you! I'm nervous because I'm playing both the defendant and prosecution attorney... so its been a ton of work, but i'm excited!
Oh thank you! Yup, due next week:)
Hey! I was in the same boat as you. For real when we walked into the court room I was so nervous. But at the end it was so FUNN! You must be so confident. And when you get up there be the “queen of the court”. Grabs everyone attention, speak loud and direct to the person. And know what your saying.
Our team won the mock trial last year it’s all about being prepared, knowing how your going to respond, questions your going to ask in response to their answer and not being timid.
Hope this helps a little!
What’s your case?
yeah thank you! that's good to know! One question, did the attorney cut witnesses off if they tried to give more than a yes/no answer? Im just not sure if I'll be given a chance to give contexts that are important for the jury to know (bc obviously the prosecution will try to make it sound as bad as possible)... hopefully that makes sense!
Im doing the commonwealth v. Tatum Zillias case. Is that the same one you did last year?
LEODOLD 4x12
When doing a cross examination and knowngly that the witness made a mistake but the witness is certain, what are the best techniques for him to see that maybe he did make a mistake and also so the jury can see that he made a mistake as well?
I can't tell whether you're referring to a witness that you are crossing or that the other side is crossing so I'll address both. Either way, great question! If you're crossing the witness, then you would want to do a traditional impeachment to prove the mistake and potentially try to nuke the credibility of the witness. If it happens while your witness is being crossed, then on redirect you may want to frame a question that suggests the witness may have misunderstood the question on cross. You should then give the witness an opportunity to clarify. And if that doesn't work, then you may want to do a "soft" impeachment. I say "soft" because you would want to show your witness made an honest mistake while hoping the jury won't discredit the entire testimony.
Where is the quiz?
I got a mock trial today (I’m the prosecutor) wish me luck
I just had mine! Howd it go?:)
🤔He NEVER ACTUALLY SAID WHAT THE QUESTION" IS" HOW TO POSE QUESTION RE THEY CHOSE TO DO SOMETHING .
What's the question we should ask,pls reply in writing.i don't understand the foreigners pronoun cation,plssssssss
0:40 here.
So as a witness I should always be the first to answer any question with "This is a decision our family decided to make" before the dirtbag defense attorney is able to make that statement?
You should always try to head off any points during direct examination. In other words, explain WHY the decisions were the right ones to make BEFORE the defense attorney has an opportunity to cross you on his or her terms.
That is reasonable, but you need the evidence it was a choice. When doing your submissions (closing argument) you can then say Wit A admitted (s)he chose that course. If you say ‘you can assume it was a choice’ the judge may correct or challenge that submission in her/his summing up.
@@brontewcat
I would just note that I think you meant the opposing party or counsel may challenge that ‘assumption.’ Totally agree. :)
@@HopefulHil The other side would challenge, but the judge in our legal system (I am not American) the judge could also say something.
@@brontewcat
Gotcha. Makes sense. Here, judges typically don’t challenge what’s being presented, but there ARE exceptions to every rule. :)
Which country are you from? I’m endlessly curious about other legal systems. Thanks!
@@HopefulHil I am an Australian and a lawyer. However I work in family law. Where the dispute is about parenting we have a bit of a hybrid system with features of both the is an adversarial system and the inquisitorial system. It is meant to be less adversarial, so judges are more interventionist.
Judges in my area of law will frequently query why particular lines of cross examination are being pursued and say to advocates that their submissions or cross examination are not helpful. Our judges will pull advocates up if their submissions don’t make sense or are clearly wrong. They will also ask questions of the witness if they want things clarified.
However, as I said it is a lesser adversarial system, and I haven’t done any straight civil law cases in over 20 years, so this may not be the case in other areas of law. However, if a judge is summing up to a jury in a criminal case I think they have to point out if one side has made a submission that is incorrect as to the facts (although I may be wrong about this).
It doesn't sound like a cross examination question to me, it sounds like persecution. You're putting words in people's mouths. You're supposed to ask them questions and ascertain from the difference in their answers if they are telling the truth.