"Answer Yes or No" in Court

Factual Questions
21

[QUOTE=jtgain]
As a witness, how do I know that the prosecution would say this? Maybe he’s a douchebag assistant DA who’s hungover. I want my testimony to reflect the whole sum of my knowledge of the incident that I witnessed.
[/quote]

Too bad, it’s not your problem. You are a witness, not a party to the case. You don’t have standing to add to your testimony. In fact, after you testify, the DA is free to say to the Judge “Mr. Jtgain’s testimony was not credible, and I would like to drop the charges.”

The whole truth is that in fact you did not actually see the defendant at the crime scene, and the defendant’s attorney is absolutely entitled to bring that fact out and argue its significance to the jury.

If I were the judge, your cross-examination might go something like this:

Defense attorney: Now, Mr. Jtgain, isn’t it true that you never actually saw my client at the crime scene on the night in question?

Jtgain: Well, I heard his voice and I –

Defense attorney: Your Honor, I believe that I am entitled to a yes or no answer here.

The court: Mr. Jtgain, please answer yes or no.

22

I think the answer lies somewhere between the fact the it’s the prosecuting and defense attorneys, not the witness, who are constructing the story of the case with the questions they ask and they format in which they ask them, along with objections being allowed on both sides, on the one hand, and the witness being able to either say “A yes or no answer would violate my oath” and “Your honor, I can’t simply answer yes or no,” pending his judgment, on the other.

jtagain, have you seen 12 Angry Men? Yes, it’s a bit dated and a melodrama, but the story that was told via the prosecuting and defense attorneys structure of questioning was not the same one painstakingly teased out from between the lines by the an eventually diligent jury, who eventually figured out the truth.

23

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Defense attorney: Now, Mr. Jtgain, isn’t it true that you never actually saw my client at the crime scene on the night in question?
[/QUOTE]

Note that the circumstances of the questioning make a difference here. If you asked a witness the above during direct examination it would be objectionable because you can’t ask leading question during direct examination. You’d have to rephrase it as “Did you see my client at the…” etc.

On cross-examination, it’s allowable.

24

23 responses and no one mentions My Cousin Vinny?

25

I don’t even know your cousin Vinny. Why would I mention him?

26

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Note that the circumstances of the questioning make a difference here. If you asked a witness the above during direct examination it would be objectionable because you can’t ask leading question during direct examination. You’d have to rephrase it as “Did you see my client at the…” etc.

On cross-examination, it’s allowable.
[/QUOTE]

I think that in general “yes or no” type questions are disfavored on direct examination.

I think that more often than not, the issue comes up when the witness is hostile and an attorney is trying to get the witness to admit to something that the witness doesn’t want to admit to.

Jtgain’s hypothetical is a good example of this. As I mentioned above, a defense attorney is absolutely entitled to bring out the fact that Jtgain didn’t actually see the defendant at the crime scene, and to emphasize that fact to the jury.

If I were prepping Jtgain to testify, I would tell him to answer as follows:

Defense attorney: Isn’t it true that you didn’t actually see my client at the crime scene on the night in question?

Jtgain: That’s absolutely correct, sir.

See, a witness who is forthright about admitting weaknesses in his story is more credible.

27

(I feel like I told this story in an earlier thread):
I was on jury duty once, and the State was cross-examining the Defendant (who took the stand in his own defense). The State Attorney kep asking questions that he wanted a yes or no answer to. The defendant kept responding with a rambling answer. Exasperated, the attorney asked the judge to instruct the witness to answer with yes or no. The judge dismissed that, saying “he is answering your question.”

[So, to answer the OP, you are not guaranteed a yes or no answer. Judges have wide latitude in what they’ll allow. And, ultimately, it is up to the jury to weigh the sufficiency of the answers given - this guy was ultimately found not guilty of sexual battery]

28

<shaking head> And they wonder why we don’t let them play with the utensiles where they can do real damage…

  1. There is no such thing as a “yes or no” question. Any question which is posited, to which the complete answer can be given with either “yes” or “no” can also be answered with “I don’t know,” “I don’t remember,” “maybe,” etc.

  2. What we are talking about are questions that ask for the witness to establish the truth of a specific fact. “Are you Mr. Jones?” “Do you own a red car?” “Are you able to play a left-handed sewer flute?” While the witness may desire to add information that clarifies the response, the question does not ask for that information. In such case, the attorney is entitled to have the question posited answered as it has been asked.

  3. Because it is possible for the clarifying information to be elucidated on cross-examination or on re-direct examination (as appropriate), it usually makes no sense to object to testimony that doesn’t directly answer the question asked. It’s coming out anyway, so why bother to look like a prick with your manner of questioning? The main reason to try and force the witness to stick to the precise answer required is because the question is part of a sequence of questions leading to some specific, important batch of testimony that the questioning attorney doesn’t want obscured by the irrelevant information the witness insists upon proffering. And boy, do they insist on proffering it! And, as is repeatedly shown here on this message board, most non-attorneys have difficulty telling what is relevant from what is irrelevant, immaterial, and quite likely harmful to the position they feel the need to try and help! :eek:

  4. Individual judges have their own policies about how to handle this sort of thing. You learn to deal with each judge as you go. I worked before three judges at one point, one of whom was insistent upon precision from both the attorneys and the witnesses, one of whom would let the witnesses say whatever they pleased, and one of whom would make his own objections to what he thought was irrelevant, and often took over the line of questioning as he saw fit!

29

In a debate about this does’nt the old chestnut"Have you stopped beating your wife?answer yes or no "usually raise its head?`

30

Yes, a couple of times in fact.

31

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
In a debate about this does’nt the old chestnut"Have you stopped beating your wife?answer yes or no "usually raise its head?`
[/QUOTE]

See post 14.

32

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
See post 14.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t it true that in most places in the U.S., a judge can do whatever he or she wants, outside of committing a crime in the courtroom? Even if a judge said that counsel had to stand on their heads, and they refused, she or he could have them taken off by the bailiff for contempt? So if a judge wants more than “yes” or “no” in answer to a question, why not?

33

Can’t questions of the “beating your wife” ilk be objected to on the grounds that they assume facts not in evidence?

34

[QUOTE=essell]
Yes, a couple of times in fact.
[/QUOTE]

So that makes three times now,might pop another one in later on if I’m in the mood.
Okay I’ll be honest lack of sleep hasn’t helped my concentration any.

Oh before I forget isn’t there something or other about “Have you stopped beating your wife?answer yes or no.” :slight_smile:

35

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Can’t questions of the “beating your wife” ilk be objected to on the grounds that they assume facts not in evidence?
[/QUOTE]

Yes… or should I elaborate?

36

I saw a presentation once by a legendary trial attorney from Chicago. He talked about how to handle exactly this situation. He said you ask the judge to instruct the witness as a last resort, but that you as the attorney should first try repeating the question:

Attorney: “You didn’t actually see my client at the crime scene, that night did you?”

Witness: “Well, I heard his voice, and I’ve known him for a long time, so I can definitely recognize it. I must have talked with him a thousand times. So I know he was there.”

Attorney: [pause. stays very calm.] “Mr. Smith, you didn’t actually see him that night did you?”

Witness: “Well, like I told you, I heard his voice. I know he was there, just like I know I am sitting in this Courtroom and I know two plus two is four.”

Attorney: [long pause, then speaking very very slowly with hands on thighs, leaning forward toward witness, with slight, VERY slight hint of exasperation in his voice]" You. did. not. see. him. that. night."

Witness: “No. I did not see him”

Attorney: "Thank you. [pause. then continue to next question]. And then you ran downstairs and the police were already there when you go there, correct?.. "

Now, if the witness will not answer the question on the third try, you turn to the judge and say
“Your honor, I’m asking a question with a yes or no answer, and I think we all deserve a yes or no answer.”
And then let the judge admonish the witness. But you as the attorney only ask the judge to intervene after you’ve tried a few times to get a straight answer.

One very important aspect of this technique is that it actually hammers away–properly–on exactly the point that the attorney is trying to make with the question: that the witness did not SEE the defendant. Maybe the witness DID hear him. Maybe the witness is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that the defendant was there. But he did not see the defendant, and the attorney is entitled to bring out that point. Now, if the witness just answers “no I did not” then the point is much less emphasized for the jury.

37

constantine, your post highlights an excellent point: the best trial attorneys are those who manage to make whatever happens in the courtroom further their own client’s goals. They’ve pre-thought out how to handle just such a situation, or they have a ready bag of tricks for dealing with it when it occurs, or they have the wit and inspiration to make lemonaide out of the lemons that invariably pop up. :slight_smile:

38

[QUOTE=guizot]
Isn’t it true that in most places in the U.S., a judge can do whatever he or she wants, outside of committing a crime in the courtroom? Even if a judge said that counsel had to stand on their heads, and they refused, she or he could have them taken off by the bailiff for contempt? So if a judge wants more than “yes” or “no” in answer to a question, why not?
[/QUOTE]

No.

It’s possibly true in the sense that a judge can order contempt charges under such circumstances, but such actions would be illegal, and subject the judge to penalties.

39

[QUOTE=jtgain]

So, as a witness I want to be thorough and tell the “whole truth” as my oath dictates. Fuck the lawyer who wants to get me to say simply “no” that I didn’t see the defendant at the scene. I have more to say, and since I have to be there anyways, they can’t make me limit my answers..
[/QUOTE]

However, it depends on if you’re a material witness for the prosecution or if you’re a defense witness.

I think a yes/no response to “did you see my client at the scene” is perfectly reasonable. Defense attornies have the right to try to extract only the information they find relevant to their defense.

And it’s always the burden of proof on the prosecution.

I mean, you either actually saw the guy, or you did not.
The question wasn’t “did you overhear my client talking? Did you notice anything unusual that would have led you to believe my client was at the scene?”

Edit: thwarted by Constantine…

40

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
2. What we are talking about are questions that ask for the witness to establish the truth of a specific fact. “Are you Mr. Jones?” “Do you own a red car?” “Are you able to play a left-handed sewer flute?” While the witness may desire to add information that clarifies the response, the question does not ask for that information.
[/quote]
What if I usually go by Mr. Smith, but for odd historical reasons am known as Mr. Jones to some people? Is a leased car “owned”? What if my brother owns the car but I have possession of it while he’s on an extended vacation up-state? What if it’s (technically) a left-handed sewer piccolo?

How then should i answer yes or no?

IANAL. (Computer analyst by trade; extracting precise information from imprecise people is part of this game too). :smiley: