I’ve seen instances (fictionalized probably but I assume it happens in real life too) where witnesses were on the stand being examined and asked a question and asked to answer “yes” or “no.” The answer to the question did have a yes or no answer, but with a larger story that explained why it was yes or no. When the witness tried to explain they were told “Just answer yes or no.” For example, the question might be “Did you hit the defendant with a shovel?” the answer might be “Yes, but it was because I tripped over a hose and fell.”
My question is when someone is on the stand, are they allowed to say what they want, more than yes or no to that particular question, if the information is relevant?
I’ve always wondered about this to. Can you turn to the judge and say, “your honour, I was sworn to tell the whole truth and yes or no is not the whole truth.”?
Really depends on the flow of the testimony. If the witness is being evasive and swerving all over the place, the judge might ask him/her to get to the point and simply answer yes or no. With a good witness who a lawyer is trying to box in a corner, the judge will usually allow an explanation. Of course, the other lawyer can always get up on re-direct and ask “you seemed uncomfortable with simply answering yes or no to Mr. Butthead’s question, why was that? Please give the jury a better understanding of your testimony on that point.”
A lawyer who tried to restrict a witness by saying “answer “yes” or “no”!” would make an objection very easy to sustain, unless it were bleedingly obvious that the witness was trying to avoid answering. Even then, judges are not fond of restricting a witness’ testimony.
If it were obvious that the witness was not trying to bring important nuances but rather avoid answering the question, the judge of fact would likely take that into consideration when deciding how much credence to give that witness’ testimony.
Fictionalized depictions of legal matters are often unreliable because fiction needs drama and legal matters, even if important, are often very sterile.
There’s also the related notion of a hostile witness: normally a lawyer can’t ask leading yes-or-no questions during direct examination, but if it becomes evident that the witness is not cooperating, the lawyer can ask permission to treat their witness as “hostile”. If permission is granted, leading yes-or-no questions are allowable.
If the witness is being cross-examined by the opposing counsel and limits the response to a “yes or no”. Once the cross-examination is complete. A good competent counsel for the opposing side can re-direct and ask the witness to expound upon their answer. This is why most litigators won’t limit the witness to just a yes or no response, as the other side can get the testimony in if they so desire.
Most witnesses are advised by the counsel for which they represent to just answer the questions and not expound with further clarification. If the attorney’s want or feel the testimony is pertinent they will ask you to expound.
A good cross examiner will ensure that the answers that can be given are limited to what he wants and he should know what the answer will be before hand and thus ensure that the witnesses testimony is impeached
“You were told of it during dinner”
Yes
“You had never had any information before”
Yes
“You were not involved in at all before”
Well, no, I was not
“You never had any opputunity to discuss it further before the breach occurred”
No
On the other hand, a good lawyer in examination in chief (direct examination for the US) wiill protect the witness from what will occur in cross, and the best way to do it is to close of any possible fruitful avenues.
“When did you learn about the deal”
At dinner with the client
“What was your reaction?”
It confirmed long held suspicions that I had
“Why did you have these suspicions”
Well, all the information that I had up this point indicated that they could take that course.
“Why did that information mean that to you”
They were not buying more stock, indicated that they were looking to extricate themselves.
Far better to do the above, then to try to fix it in rexamination.
If you are constrained to give a simple yes or no answer to those “questions”, you may well be being forced to lie. The way they are phrased, “yes” and “no” both amount to agreeing with the questioner’s suggestion. I certainly hope “good” lawyers do not do this (or are not allowed to get away with it, if they try).
Generally speaking, the obligation is to answer the question and tell the truth. The lawyer has no power to force the exact format of your answer, but is well practiced in getting witnesses to comply.
This is the law in California. There are lawyers who try to cut off explanations and judges who let them. The witness should complain of being interrupted, and so should opposing counsel.
Beng compelled to agree with the askers questions, well its the basis of cross examination. So you hope in vain. A judge might interfere if the witness is being intimidated too much. Also remember that cross is firstly inherently hostile and secondly follows examination in chief, where the Witness would have had the opportunity to put and elaborate his/her own case.
In the hearings in which I’ve been involved, the lawyer for my side would retrace all points that were fuzzy during “redirect”.
So he would ask me a question like this -
“Mr BD, you stated in court that you hit the man with the shovel. Why did you hit him with the shovel.”
Me: “Because I was holding the shovel and tripped while walking on the rocks next to him. The shovel hit him by accident.”
Most lawyers are smart enough not to try to get too crafty with the “yes or no” setups as it’s usually a great “aha” setup for the opposing lawyer in rebuttal.
I wonder how common this sort of exchange really is. I often think if I were a “yes, but–” witness, they’d need a crowbar to pry those two words out of me at the beginning of my testimony. I’d start by answering “A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer is bound to be misleading. May I explain why ‘yes’ and ‘no’ are both inappropriate answers?” and if the judge finally directed me to answer Yes or No, I’d say “This is contrary to my oath to tell the whole truth but with that noted: Yes.”
If a lawyer tries the above exchange, the Judge will almost certainly allow the witness to complete what he wanted to say.
What most in this thread seem to not realise is that the control of a witness is the key to witness handling skills of any advocate. In cross an advocate knows what the answer is going to be before he asks a question. He in cross if he wants to put a yes or no question, is not going to issue a question where a “yes but” is possible. Its going to be a closed and leading question with only one realistic answer.
So he is not going to ask (to someone who is self taught in a field)
You have no official qualification
Because the witness can easily say; “no but I have worked ten years under qualified masters or in the industry”.
He is going to ask
You have not been certified by the <appropriate authority> That does not lead itself as well to a “yes but”.