Now however, recalling how most litigants love to blame their attorneys for false or ridiculous interrogatory answers, I hold back at
first on my cross examination and only show the witness the interrogatory answers.
Not exact matches
The court
on April 25 adjourned the matter for
cross examination after the testimony of the
first prosecution witness, Mr. Victor Ehiabhi.
On cross examination, the officer confirmed that his report on the case assured that my client had no odor of alcohol on his breath, in direct contradiction to his direct testimony and the testimony of the first - arriving police office
On cross examination, the officer confirmed that his report
on the case assured that my client had no odor of alcohol on his breath, in direct contradiction to his direct testimony and the testimony of the first - arriving police office
on the case assured that my client had no odor of alcohol
on his breath, in direct contradiction to his direct testimony and the testimony of the first - arriving police office
on his breath, in direct contradiction to his direct testimony and the testimony of the
first - arriving police officer.
It seems undeniable that in a trial, if one of the lawyers spends 80 or 100 percent of his or her
cross - and direct -
examination time arguing his or her case through the window of the witnesses
on the stand and the opposing attorney using traditional methods gives up the opportunity to argue the case during direct
examination (and as a result is able to argue his or her case through the window of the witnesses
on the stand only 50 percent or less of the time), the
first lawyer will have the advantage.