Are court witnesses allowed to expand on a "yes" or "no" answer?

[njtt]

@Gorsnak

Liar paradox - Wikipedia

Yes, I am well aware of that, and it is not what I was talking about.

@AK84

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.

So you are saying that solicitation of perjury on cross-examination is ok? :dubious:

It is not a matter of “hostile.” Your examples (if limited to yes/no answers) are trick questions that only allow for one answer, which may well be a lie. If that is allowed in US courts, then something is badly wrong with the system.

[Acsenray]

@AK84

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”.

To me, “yes, but” applies equally to both questions.

[AK84]

@njtt

So you are saying that solicitation of perjury on cross-examination is ok? :dubious:

It is not a matter of “hostile.” Your examples (if limited to yes/no answers) are trick questions that only allow for one answer, which may well be a lie. If that is allowed in US courts, then something is badly wrong with the system.

A lawyer is not permitted to elicit testimony which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe is untrue, so your assertion and fears have little basis in fact. Also you seem to be unaware of the exact purpose of cross examination; it is to attack a witnesses credibility not (usually) his truthfulness. That is done through the asking of a series of short pointed, closed and leading questions. Most of the time, whether or not he is lying is not the issue, its whether the trier of fact would find him more credible and believable than your own witnesses. An honest witness can be and often is not a credible one. The purpose moreover, is not to make a witness state that black was white when his position is that is was black, its purpose is to make the trier of fact doubt whether the perception and or deduction of the witness as to blackness was infact correct or not.

[QUOTE=Ascenray]
To me, “yes, but” applies equally to both questions.
[/QUOTE]

No. The point of the question here is to cast doubt on the witnesses abilities, the first gives him a comeback the second less so and the effect of the comeback on whoever the trier of fact is shall be reduced.