# "You didn't...?" in the courtroom **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2018, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-didnt-in-the-courtroom/805919 "2018-01-05T15:22:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-didnt-in-the-courtroom/805919/42 "2018-01-09T20:48:00Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I wonder if there is any historical incident of a defendant being convicted solely on the basis of one poorly-chosen word. “It’s chowdah! _CHOWDAH!_ I’ll kill you! I’ll kill all of you! Especially those of you on the jury!” Anyhoo, I remember but cannot seem to name a British courtroom comedy (i believe it was in black and white, likely putting it earlier than 1960 or so) that hinged on a slander trial about a horse race (the defendant, disappointed about the poor performance of one of the horses, “Slippery Sam”, mouthed off about how the jockey was holding back, i.e. throwing the race). The line of questioning ran along the lines of: Lawyer: Did you back Slippery Sam in the race? Defendant: No, I didn’t bet on the race. Lawyer: I see. Which other horse didn’t you back? Defendant: [brief confused hesitation] I … didn’t back all of them. After that, it was an extended and pointlessly confusing grammar maze which, were I the judge, I would have stopped dead in its tracks. Instead, it was allowed to continue until the defendant tripped up on something, making it certain he was going to be found liable. It’s possible I misunderstood or misinterpreted what was happening. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-didnt-in-the-courtroom/805919/43 "2018-01-09T21:14:01Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Like **Shodan** , I say that it is not at all ambiguous. Yes, you may linguistically parse it so that it is somewhat contradictory, but in my example, the “no” clearly means: “No, I would not automatically believe a child over an adult. I would fairly weigh each piece of testimony and make a determination based on something other than the age of the witness.” There’s a different interpretation, not related to the main debate here. I thought the “No” meant the witness would inherently weigh an adult’s testimony more than a child’s. I thought the question forced acceptance of the premise that one must be weighed more than the other, and that if forced to answer either “Yes” or “No”, then the alternative you just described could not be selected. This gets at the other issue I and others have mentioned: witnesses being forced to answer either Yes or No. How often does this happen? If it does happen is there a way for the witness to declare a “timeout” to explain their problem with the question? Or does the opposing lawyer usually (or always) have to do that? It would be nice if there was always at least such a timeout option invokeable by the witness. Then if all witnesses were cognizant of the ambiguity of a You didn’t (and related n’t contractions) things would be much less confiusing. And here I note: a good solution (if necessary) might be to ban lawyers questioning witnesses from using n’t contractions. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-didnt-in-the-courtroom/805919/44 "2018-01-09T21:59:44Z")
I should add that it would be just a partial solution. And it helps because sentences like “You did not…” do not automatically sound like questions (without significant vocal inflection at the end of the sentence). And so the entire courtroom would be on alert that something potentially confusing is happening. Either because it does not sound like a question, or because the inflection would stand out quite obviously. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-didnt-in-the-courtroom/805919/45 "2018-01-09T23:37:04Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > 😃 > > To clarify, generally speaking a witness is permitted to clarify something s/he has said. The evidence being given is by the witness, not the lawyer. The exception are when i) witness has being rambling way too much already and the lawyer is attempting to get back on track or ii) when anything beyond “Yes”/“No” is irrelevant or not necessary. A rare case. > > The point of evidence is to prove/disprove a fact in issue. Trying this stunt does not further that. If the witness rambles, right, the attorney can ask that he limit his answers to “yes or no please” but he is not bound by that. But if rambling continues the judge may say something. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-didnt-in-the-courtroom/805919.md?page=2)