Cross-examination is a powerful tool in litigation. Not only is it essential in testing the truthfullness of the testimony of a witness, it can also be used, if done with great skill, to bring out facts that otherwise would not be available to the opposing party against whom such witness is being presented. But while it is mighty in the hands of the able counsel who wields it well, it can be a double-edged sword that could prove to be a time bomb that explodes in the face of the cross-examining attorney who does not know that most of the time, less is more in this case.
You see there are many pitfalls and hidden traps in cross-examination, one of which is instead of weakening your opponents case, it could instead stregnthen it or provide the details that was otherwise overlooked during the direct examination. For a skilled lawyer, a flawed cross-examination by his opponent may give him the oppourtunity, through re-direct examination, to present a fact that was included in the direct exam. Or it may allow the witness to explain what seemed to be implausible during the direct. Which is why more famous lawyers with vast experience would advise that in cross-examination it is best to keep it simple, brief and when the punchline has been delivered, stop. Know when you have already pushed your luck because you just might turnout to be manna from heaven for your opposing counsel.
No comments:
Post a Comment