Lawyers are often told to never ask a question to which they don’t know the answer. What do they do if a witness responds to a question with an unexpected answer? Originally Answered: Lawyers are usually told to never ask a question they don't know the answer to.
You can start questioning your witnesses, one at a time, by asking them their name and asking them some background information, like how they know the parties in the case. You will then have to get into asking questions about the event they witnessed or any other issue they are there to testify about.
After you have finished asking your witnesses questions, the other side will have a chance to ask them questions, which is called cross-examination. Note: When your witnesses are testifying, your witnesses can only testify as to events that they have personal knowledge of.
The problem can arise whether the lawyer is called as a witness on behalf of the client or is called by the opposing party. Determining whether or not such a conflict exists is primarily the responsibility of the lawyer involved. If there is a conflict of interest, the lawyer must secure the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing.
As part of their trial strategy, lawyers will call their witnesses in an order that’s most helpful for convincing the jury of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. However, the judge has the ultimate say over when witnesses testify.
Criminal defendants have the right under the Sixth Amendment’s “confrontation clause” to be present when witnesses are testifying against them and to cross-examine those witnesses. There may be exceptions, however, when witnesses aren’t available to testify at trial. Depending on the circumstances, certain types of reliable statements from unavailable witnesses might be admitted as evidence, such as previous testimony at a preliminary hearing or deposition where the defendant’s attorney was able to question the witness.
Before the trial, as part of the evidence-sharing process known as “ discovery ,” defendants are normally entitled to receive the names and statements of the witnesses that the prosecution plans to call (although prosecutors may not always have to reveal the names of confidential informants). Defendants also have a right to any information that prosecutors have about the identity or whereabouts of other witnesses who might be able to provide relevant testimony for the defense.
Criminal trials follow the same basic order. Following opening statements, the prosecution presents its evidence, including its witnesses. For each witness, there may be two or more steps to the testimony: 1 Direct examination. First, the prosecutor will ask questions intended to bring out the witness’s story. 2 Cross-examination. The defendant’s lawyer will then question the witness in an effort to discredit or at least shed doubt on the testimony. Generally, questions should address matters covered during the direct examination, but the attorney may also ask questions related to the witness’s credibility. 3 Redirect and recross examination. After the cross-examination, the prosecutor may ask the witness more questions, usually to clarify parts of the testimony or address issues that came up during the cross. Then, the defense attorney also has another chance at further questioning, usually to discuss new subjects discussed during the redirect.
That personal knowledge is one reason witness testimony can be so persuasive to juries. Sometimes, witness testimony is the only evidence that places the defendant at (or far from) the crime scene. Other times, witnesses provide the context that supports or undermines other evidence. Either way, there are general rules for how ...
After the cross-examination, the prosecutor may ask the witness more questions, usually to clarify parts of the testimony or address issues that came up during the cross. Then, the defense attorney also has another chance at further questioning, usually to discuss new subjects discussed during the redirect.
Cross-examination. The defendant’s lawyer will then question the witness in an effort to discredit or at least shed doubt on the testimony. Generally, questions should address matters covered during the direct examination, but the attorney may also ask questions related to the witness’s credibility.
The rationale for this suggestion was that witnesses can blurt out all kinds of information, and because such 'blurts' can contain communication undesirable for one side of a conflict, it is often information a lawyer might not want a judge and/or jury to hear.
Lawyers are often told to never ask a question to which they don’t know the answer. What do they do if a witness responds to a question with an unexpected answer?
When a lawyer talks with unrepresented third parties, Rule 4.3 requires all of the following: – A lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested.
Rule 4.2 states “ [i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.”
A lawyer can always talk to his own client before the client testifies. There is, of course, not prohibition against a lawyer talking to his client prior to the client testifying. In fact, that is precisely what the lawyer is supposed to do.
A lawyer can never tell a witness to lie under oath. As to all three types of witness, a lawyer may not counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law.
With some exceptions, a lawyer ask a witness not to talk to the other side. A lawyer may not request that a witness refrain from voluntarily talking to the opposing party or counsel, unless that witness is: (ii) a relative, employee or agent of a client.
After you have finished asking your witnesses questions, the other side will have a chance to ask them questions, which is called cross-examination. Note: When your witnesses are testifying, your witnesses can only testify as to events that they have personal knowledge of.
When you question your own witnesses, this is called direct examination. On direct examination, you will usually only be allowed to ask open-ended questions that do not lead your witnesses in a certain way or influence their answers. “Leading questions,” where you suggest the answer to the question, are not allowed.
The problem can arise whether the lawyer is called as a witness on behalf of the client or is called by the opposing party. Determining whether or not such a conflict exists is primarily the responsibility of the lawyer involved. If there is a conflict of interest, the lawyer must secure the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing.
A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof.
[1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.
[2] The tribunal has proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a lawyer serving as both advocate and witness. The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles may prejudice that party's rights in the litigation. A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof.
Whether the tribunal is likely to be misled or the opposing party is likely to suffer prejudice depends on the nature of the case, the importance and probable tenor of the lawyer's testimony, and the probability that the lawyer's testimony will conflict with that of other witnesses.
1. In particular, " [t]he tribunal has proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a lawyer serving as both advocate and witness ," and the opposing party has such an objection "where the combination of roles may prejudice that party's rights in the litigation.". Id. § 3.7 cmt. 2.
It is equally unlikely that a judge, as compared to a jury , will be unfairly influenced by the lawyer's dual roles."). Some courts have held that the attorney testimony rule applies to affidavits as well as testimony at trial.
However, in general, courts appear to be reluctant to disqualify an attorney for violating the attorney testimony rule solely on the basis of statements made in an affidavit in support of summary judgment, even where the attorney's statements go far beyond merely putting documents before the court.
It is well established that an attorney's affidavit can be used, in connection with a summary judgment motion, for the simple purpose of placing documents produced in discovery before the court. See, e.g., United States v.
5 Reasons to Ask for a Lawyer when questioned by Law Enforcement. If you are in the military, the military police (or other law enforcement personnel) have to tell you what crime you are suspected of before they question you. They also have to tell you that you have a right to remain silent. And they have to tell you that anything you say can be ...
They want to talk to you because they have some evidence that you committed a crime. It could be a statement from someone who believes they saw you commit a crime. Or it could be a statement by one witness who lied to the police to get you in trouble.
Do not talk to the police. 2. Because they think that if they ask for a lawyer, the police will think they are guilty. This is not true. It is ALWAYS smart to ask for a lawyer. 3. Because they want to tell their story. Don’t tell your story to the police. After you speak to your lawyer, you can talk about how to tell your story.
At trial, the police officer testifies that he had never told you that the weapon used was a gun. The police wonder why you mentioned a gun. But, you remember the first police officer who brought you in for questioning told you that the crime involved a gun.
Even if you are innocent and tell the truth and you don’t tell the police anything incriminating, there is still a chance that your answers can be used to crucify you if the police do not recall your testimony with 100% accu racy. Example : “I don’t know who killed John. I’ve never touched a gun in my life.”.