I have never been cross examined, in any trial. But I have always wondered, could you get by by answering only “Yes” or “No”?
It seems to me that a lawyer conducting a cross examination needs to do two things:
-verify (from your answers, that his position is right)
-brand you as an unreliable witness (if your testimony conflicts with his position)
With this in mind, can you restrict your replies, so that (essentially), you are only saying yes or no?
Consider this dialogue:
(Lawyer): “Mr. Fuhrman, hve you ever been a racist?”
(Fuhrman): “No”
(Lawyer): “Mr. Fuhrman”, we have you on tape, saying “nigger”"
(Fuhrman): “No”
(Lawyer): “Mr. Fuhrman, are you denying what you said on tape?”
(Fuhrman): “No”
Can you be made to say more than these two replies?
That looks pretty unreliable to me.
I’m overwhelmingly confident that if you answer non-yes or no questions with yes or no the judge will tell you to stop dicking around.
As with most legal questions, the rules vary from place to place. Federal Rule 611(a) provides that “the court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.” Most courts have similar rules, and some even have more specific rules for what to do when a witness is non-responsive.
Under the federal rule, whether a witness’s one word answer is considered responsive to the question, and what to do about it, is a matter of the judge’s discretion. If the judge thinks that more needs to be said by way of answer in order to be responsive to the question, the judge can ask the witness to elaborate. Obviously, some questions cannot be answered with a yes or no (e.g. how many drinks did you have?). If a question can be fully answered with a yes or no, you’re not required to elaborate if a yes or no answers the question.
Of course, the purpose of testimony is the convince the judge or jury of some fact. If you refuse to elaborate on some answers without being ordered to do so by the judge, you’re unlikely to be a persuasive witness.
Yesterday? None.
Are you familiar with the court-fiction cliche of the Judge saying “The witness will answer”?
In a civil case my boss was told to keep his answers as simple as possable.
If yes or no would do then answer with a yea or no. If the company’s lawyer wanted more information they would get the information on re direct.
If you are asked a question that can be answered with a “yes” or a “no,” than naturally that is an appropriate response. Some questions require more. From “what time did you get to the bar?” to “Why did you decide to fire Mr. Smith?”
The “yes” and “no” thing probably relates to the belief among some attorneys that you should only ask “yes or no” questions during cross examination. Practicing attorneys have range of opinions on that subject.
May I ask a related question?
In courtroom dramas, occasionally a witness will be required to answer only with either a “yes” or “no.” I can’t recall whether I’ve seen judges requiring this in these dramas, but certainly lawyers on these shows will often demand “Just answer yes or no!”
Please tell me that in a real court (in the US if it makes a difference) this would never fly?
Your question has the same answer as the OP’s, Frylock. Witness’s must both answer the questions they are asked, and also only answer the questions they are asked. It is the judge’s discretion to determine whether an answer is non-responsive. So if the question fairly calls for only a yes or no answer, an attempt at elaboration could be reasonably seen as an attempt to add additional information that is not responsive to the question, and in such a scenario the judge can stop the witness. In practice, judges sometimes do so when witnesses insist on discussing irrelevant (and often prejudicial) issues in response to questions.
You took the words outa my mouth. Thats always been my biggest complaint about TV land court. I sure ain’t answering a yes/no question with a yes/no response if I think yes/no is misleading.
Technically speaking, a cross-examination question should only invite a yes or no response… “Calls for a narrative” is an objection to a question on cross that invites any type of complex answer. This because cross examination should be limited to the scope of direct examination – you should never be asked any question entirely unrelated to the questions that were asked on direct.
Cross is about controlling the witness. You don’t want to give them a chance to tell their side, and you want to cast any attempt to do so as uncooperative before the jury.
No.
In this case, every question here was yes-or-no.
"Mr Fuhrman, we have you on tape, saying ‘nigger’"
is not a question at all, and therefore wouldn’t require any response.
Agree with all the previous posters who say that this varies somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The general rule is that on cross-examination the witness is only supposed to answer the question asked. If the question calls for a yes or no answer, then the witness is supposed to answer yes or no.
The other general rule is that a trial court judge has a tremendous amount of power to direct how the witness will answer. I have heard of at least one case where the witness, who was also a party, simply would not answer the most basic questions without going off on a 5 minute monologue. Apparently the judge tired of this VERY quickly, and ordered that the witness ONLY answer by saying “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know.” Note by the way that “I don’t know” is ALWAYS a proper answer if it’s the truth (in fact, it’s the ONLY proper answer if it’s the truth)
Generally on cross-examination, it is best to answer the question being asked and not to elaborate or try to explain your position. As a witness, it is often very tempting to want to explain or justify your answer if you think it puts you in a bad light. It is almost always best to resist this temptation. Often, by trying to explain yourself, you are just giving the examining attorney more ammunition to use against you.
Now, sometimes a question comes up that looks like a yes or no question but a yes or no answer is not appropriate. These come in at least two varieties:
- assumes facts not in evidence
- vague questions
Example of number 1: the oftmentioned “Have you stopped beating your wife yet.”
Example of number 2: “you didn’t like Mr. Jones very much did you?”
As to the first type of question, the proper thing to do is to let the attorney make an objection.
As to number 2, the proper answer is to say “I can’ fairly answer that with a yes or no, may I explain to the jury?”
Strictly speaking you are right, but I take it that the OP is using the term “cross-examination” more generally to refer to examination of hostile witnesses. So, if you the plaintiff’s attorney calls the defendant as a witness, then strictly speaking, for just the reasons you mentioned, this is NOT “cross-examination” but “direct examination.” However, at least in my experience, most attorneys would refer to it, imprecisely as “cross-examination” because it is examination of a hostile witness.
Absolutely correct. A favorite tactic of the experienced cross-examiner is to make a statement and then just wait for the witness to rush into the silence.
The best response to a statement masquerading as a question is to wait for the attorney to ask a question.
The second best response is to say, politely “I’m sorry Mr. Smith, is that a question?”
Also impossible scenarios. The opposing attorney asked me such a question in a recent trial. I had to tell him why his question couldn’t be answered with a yes or no, that he was misunderstanding the function of the lake outlet. Then I gave a narrative answer.
Sometimes it’s a bit tricky if the attorney doesn’t want you to elaborate. At one such point the exasperated judge told me: “Just answer the question!”.
Was the judge exasperated with you or with the attorney.
Was the judge saying “just answer the question” as in
- “NinetyWt, enough with your ‘I need to give an explanation’ just say the word ‘yes’ or say the word ‘no’ and be done with it” OR
- “NinetyWt, fine, we get it, you need to give an explanation, so give your explanation and get on with it.”
Here’s why I ask. Frequently the witness, being human, feels the need to give an explanation about, e.g., how the lake outlet works when it may not be necessary.
So, the attorney asks a question about whether you put motor oil in the radiator, and it is clear that the attorney doesn’t get it that you don’t put motor oil in a radiator. But the attorney doesn’t know enough about engines to understand that, so his question is confused.
So you are tempted to say, well, see, coolant goes in the radiator, not motor oil. Don’t say that. Just say “no, I did not put motor oil in the radiator”
He’s answering, he just not responding.
She was more exasperated with him than me; number 2.
Right, it was more complicated and incorrect than that though. The lawsuit had to do with the functioning of the lake outlet, so it was very important. I knew not to give away the store.
Opposing should have hired their own expert to explain to them how it all worked before trial, is all I’ll say about that.