Who's On First Principles of Effective Cross Examination?
Sometimes propositional communication is too much of a good thing and even the best trial lawyer can get derailed by a stout Irish bull:
(Taken from the transcripts of courtroom testimony in the infamous defamation action brought by the Wolfman v. Abbott & Costello, 256 F.2d 58 (1962) What follows is the notorious cross examination of Lou Costello by Jack Lettman, the attorney for the Wolfman:)
Q: Are you prepared to tell the truth in these matters today, Mr. Costello?
A: I've not done any preparation for this.
Q: Have you lived here all of your life?
A: Not yet.
Q: You seem to have a bit of a speech impediment; what is the nature of that?
A: I'ts really hard to say.
Q: Could you explain further?
A: I'ts also hard to tell.
Q: Are you confident in your prior testimony?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Why did you retract parts of your earlier testimony?
A: I was nonplussed.
Q: Should I say your earlier testimony was self-serving?
A: Help yourself!
Q: No, I mean your testimony was....look, can I ask you a simple question?
A: Sure, ask a harder one now.
Q: Do you mind if I ask you a rhetorical question?
A: Well, if I give a false response, would it be considered perjury?
Q: Only if it's not responded to under oath.
A: Alright. In that case, go ahead and ask another one.
Q: Mr. Costello, have you now or have you ever been a Communist?
A: What's Joe McCarthy got to do with this?
Q: Well, do you support the overthrow of the US government by force or violence?
A: Ahhh.....violence!
Q: You answered differently in your prior testimony.
A: You're asking was I lying then or am I lying now?
Q: Don't confuse the issue. Just answer the question.
A: Please ask me a different one!
Q: Now you're begging the question. That won't work here.
A: I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may increment myself.
Q: Just answer all at once, please.
A: I've forgotten what I wasn't going to say.
Q: Do you need the Court to refresh your recollection?
A: No, I'm not tired at all.
Q: Your honor, I'd like a recess at this point!
A: Aren't you a little too old for that?
--And so on, and so on, and so on....The case was ultimately thrown out of Court for containing too much hearsay and innuendo. Interesting sidenote: the great Kim Novak (pictured) was all set to be a character witness for the plaintiff, although her testimony turned out to not be needed after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment