![]() It all depends on what you mean by detailed and what you mean by thorough." "Doctor, let me stop you. "Doctor would you agree that it's important to take a detailed thorough history when you see a patient for the first time?" It's because now, when I cross-examine this hostile witness, the moment he begins to explain anything I will immediately stop him and bring him back to his promise that he made to me at the beginning. ![]() Once I get the doctor to accept and agree to these little promises before I even begin my cross-examination, I have achieved a great advantage. If you can't answer my question because of the way I asked it, will you promise to tell me that you can't answer my question because of how I phrased it, without giving me any explanation?"Īgain, he has to say yes. "I may also ask a question that's not phrased well. In that case do you promise to tell me you can't answer my question and NOT give any explanation or reason why you can't answer my question?" "I might ask a question that you cannot answer. If you can answer yes or no, do you promise you'll ONLY answer yes or no?" "Doctor, before I begin, I just want to let you know that I'll be asking you a series of questions that ONLY call for a yes or no answer. Well, if a witness agrees to the ground rules, then it makes it much easier to hold him accountable for his answers. You might be thinking "What ground rules?" You might wonder "Why would any witness agree to something before delving into cross-examination?" It has to do with getting this hostile witness to agree to certain ground rules. It makes it much easier to control the witness too. It makes cross-examination that much more powerful. I should have told you about a little strategy that some of the best trial lawyers in New York use before they launch into their cross-examination. Questions that ONLY call for a 'yes', 'no', 'I don't know' or 'I can't answer the question' answers.īut wait. "You'd also agree that a doctor who fails to perform a physical examination on the first patient visit would also be a violation from the standard of care, correct?" "Yes." "You'd agree that failing to take a medical history would be a violation from the standard of care, right?" "After taking a detailed history you'd agree that good medical care required you to perform a physical examination, correct?" "That's know as the 'chief complaint', correct?" "Yes." "Would you agree the standard of care required you to inquire why she was in your office?" "Doctor, would you agree that the basic standards of medical care required you to take a detailed thorough history from the patient on her first visit?" If done correctly, this 'admission' from the doctor is extremely powerful to use against him. I also need to determine whether he violated the basic standards of medical care. I need to establish whether his treatment conformed to the standard of care. I need to establish what the basic standard of care is in this instance. I need to establish a number of things with this 'hostile' witness.īy the way, you should know that a 'hostile' witness need not yell or scream.Ī 'hostile' witness simply means that he is an opposing witness. The doctor whom you believe was careless and caused you permanent harm. I am now questioning the doctor whom you have sued. Let's say this is a medical malpractice case. Not unlike the Presidential candidates at their debates. He'll do everything he can to wiggle out of answering my questions directly. He wants to tell the jury why he's right and we're wrong. I can't answer the question the way you phrased it.Įspecially when the witness has his own agenda. The only alternatives he has is to claim "I don't remember" or "I can't answer the question the way you asked it." Instead, I ONLY want him to either agree or disagree with my statement or question. That means that EVERY ONE of my questions must be carefully phrased to ONLY call for a yes or no answer. Questions that ONLY call for a yes or no answer. ![]() The short answer is by asking short, tight, leading questions. However, if done correctly, it works very well. I can create a strategy that does not allow him to spew his vitriol and hatred when I am questioning him. I can plan a strategy that never gives this hostile witness the opportunity to explain anything. I know that if I ask him "Why?" he's going to grab the bull by the horns and explain at length why our case does not have merit.īecause I know these things, I can plan for them. I know that if given the opportunity, he's going to badmouth me and my client. I know that whatever comes out of his mouth will be unfavorable to my clients' case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |