Apollyon, did you fail to read the first statement I made in my post? You know, the part about “yes or no” questions having other possible answers, such as “maybe” and “I don’t know?”
Maybe you should go back to learning the “game”. 
I was commenting on your second category of questions, which was characterized as ones that would not require further information (and – imo – ones for which “maybe”, “don’t know”, etc wouldn’t be reasonable answers): “Maybe” isn’t really an answer to: “Do you own a red car?” when the real answer is “I lease it”. “I don’t know” probably isn’t going to be a well received answer to: “Are you Mr. Jones?” 
I wasn’t really trying to be a smartass… I’m just interested to know how one can / should deal with this sort of question… though I guess that short declarative statements (“I lease a red car”) would be generally appropriate.
Maybe… though I suspect that in part there is a difference in the purpose of the information we are each trying to extract, or in the nature of the gathering. Collecting user requirements is (probably) more like investigation than the formal questioning in a courtroom.
Whereas I don’t necessarily know at the start what will prove to be relevant, or material… in fact, that little detail that they fail to expand upon – the one involving the sticky notes that isn’t part of any documented process – is likely to be the bit I need.
If you had been asked a question such as, “Do you own a red car?” and you leased it, and didn’t know if leasing was owning, the literal answer to the question would be: “Maybe.” You might then ask before any other question is asked, “Is leasing a car owning it?” Or, you could be a good witness and wait for the follow-up question: “What do you mean, maybe?”
Now remember, here is a general truism about the questions attorneys ask in court: NEVER ask a question you do not already know the answer to. I won’t say I never did such a thing, but it was pretty damn rare when I did, because it’s precisely the sort of thing that comes back and bites you on the ass.
So in the hypothetical in question, the attorney already knows, most likely, that you lease the red car, and would pose the question (if (s)he is a good attorney) in such a way that you understand what to do about the fact you lease the red car (if, in fact, you do lease a red car).
But the question itself, if asked, “do you own a red car?” does not need any answer besides “yes,” “no,” “maybe,” or some such thing to answer it. At that point, it is up to the questioner to decide what added information, if any, (s)he wants to elicit from you. You, the witness, however, have complied with the question without offering anything else.
Yes, they’re allowed to commit any crimes outside a courtroom they want
And, if I were the witness, I would pause for a long time, then speaking very very slowly with my hands on my thighs leaning towards the attorney but with no exasperation at all in my voice “I. Recognized. His. Voice.”
Regards,
Shodan
At which point, the judge would likely telll you to answer yes or no.
At which point you would be admonished to answer the question asked.
Really, this insistence by people here that they, as witnesses, should get to tell the court what they want to tell the court is quite absurd. First of all, you will have already been interviewed by either the attorney for the party that calls you to the stand, or by their investigator, or both. Thus, the party which is calling you to testify knows why they want you on the stand, and knows what you know about the situation. If they don’t ask you about something, it’s because they don’t consider it important. If they don’t cross-examine you about something the other side asks, then it STILL is because they don’t consider it important.
“sewer flute”?
You don’t want to know the answer to that question.
I agree. Anyway, you aren’t doing the prosecutor any good by responding like this. After all, the jury will clearly see that you are evading the question. Also, you are – in effect – emphasizing again and again to the jury that you didn’t actually see the defendant at the crime scene.
Is there a legal definition for “the whole truth”? (I’m thinking that there probably is) How do you, as a witness, know that you’ve told it?
Not really.
The “whole” truth means that, if you are answering a question, you don’t pony up part of an answer, not saying some of it to avoid the effects of saying that part of it.
For example: Q. Where were you on the night of the 12th? A. I was down at Mickey’s Bar (true). Not said: from which I left at 11:00 to go to the victim’s house (also true, and part of the “whole truth”).
This is, of course, a very simplistic rendition of the concept.
Huh.
I always thought that was just something they made up for *A Civil Action * (John Travolta says it). How are you supposed to get any useful information out of a deposition if you don’t ask about the stuff you don’t already know?
A deposition is different than “in court”.
I have very little deposition experience (they are a rare tool in criminal work) but I can say with confidence that the approach to a deposition is often “ask EVERYTHING you don’t know the answer to.” They are a discovery tool, and the questioner has much wider latitude to explore than would exist in court. Information elicited in court must be relevant. For a deposition, the standard is that a question must be relevant on its face, or be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Indeed, the whole point to the deposition is to find out what the person would say, if they were called into court.
Well, it’s also a useful investigative tool, but mostly it’s to make all parties aware what the witness would testify to.