A Lawyer’s Guide: The Direct Examination


Lawyers must bear in mind that the direct examination of their witnesses must seem unrehearsed to the jury. This helps the direct examination look more sincere, credible, and convincing. To achieve this, David Serna, a lawyer, tells litigators that they must converse with their witnesses instead of expecting the answers they have already acquired before the trial.

In this short blog, David Serna, a lawyer, shares some of the insights he acquired from 4 decades of practice and litigation.

Preparing witnesses for the questions asked during the direct examination
Although lawyers must not read their questions while conducting the direct examination of their witnesses, lawyers must make an outline of the presentation of the witnesses and the questions they want to ask each witness. This list of questions must be given to the witnesses in advance so that they know what to expect and what to answer during the trial.

Some of the best lawyers write down an outline of their theory of the case to guide them during the direct examination. For instance, writing the date and time of the incident is a more effective prompt than writing the actual question to be asked. In a way, this allows the lawyer to improvise, adjust, and appear spontaneous.

The lawyer must orient the witnesses and give them an idea of how the trial is conducted. The lawyer must practice with their witnesses. This will prevent surprises during the trial and prevent the witness from narrating any other fact that may be damaging or disadvantageous to the theory of the case.

Listening to the answers during the direct examination
Some lawyers make the mistake of not listening to their witnesses. They are confident that because they have sufficiently prepared for the direct examination, the answers during their practice will be the same as those given during the trial.

This is the danger of depending so much on the script. Lawyers tend to overlook omitted facts that will help build the case and those added that weaken the theory of the case. Jurors notice these things. Be attentive during the trial.

For more insights on practice and litigation, follow blogs by David Serna, a lawyer with invaluable experience.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Impeaching a Witness Based on Inconsistencies

One way to undermine the evidence of an opponent is to impeach his or her witnesses based on inconsistencies in his or her testimony. Lawyers are always advised to listen during the direct and cross-examination because this is the perfect time to observe the testimony and behavior of the witnesses of their opponent. David Serna, a lawyer of over 40 years, offers helpful tips to both new and experienced lawyers. Today, he discusses prior statements of witnesses governed by the Federal Rules on Evidence 613. Discrepancies in testimonies are expected when several witnesses are testifying to the same incident. It is but natural that these individuals remember the details of the incident differently.   However, lawyers should consider only those errors and testimonial inconsistencies that are significant and deserving of the jury’s attention. Persistently bringing up minor inconsistencies will only waste the time of the court and will most likely annoy the jury. FRE 613 prov...
Read more

Cross-Examination of a Crash Reconstructionist

Crash reconstruction is a science that involves mathematics and physics to determine what happened before, during, and after a collision. Reconstruction witnesses testify about the details of a collision, such as the speed of a vehicle, the cause of a collision, and the motion of the vehicle before and after an impact. David Serna, a lawyer of over 40 years, advises young prosecutors in preparing for the cross-examination of defense reconstruction witnesses. The prosecutor must know whether the evidence or data gathered and used by the witness supports a reliable conclusion. Here are three things to remember before conducting a cross-examination of reconstruction witnesses. 1.        Review the crash report It is important to read the crash report of the opponent’s expert crash reconstructionist. The prosecutor’s crash reconstructionist can help him understand the factors considered by the opponent’s reconstruction witness and determine the shor...
Read more

The Rules on Preliminary Hearing and Trial

Preliminary Hearings take place before a judge and only after the prosecutor has filed charges against a person. These hearings are not trials, which may be conducted before a group of individuals, called a grand jury. There are, however, procedural rules on trial that similarly apply to preliminary hearings. In this brief article, David Serna, a lawyer and educator for many years, discusses some of the rules that apply to preliminary hearings and trials. Like a trial, an ordinary witness can testify during a preliminary hearing. Generally, the testimony must be based on what they perceive and not on opinion. However, during a preliminary hearing, unlike a trial, hearsay evidence is allowed and admissible. Three things can happen after a preliminary hearing. If the charges are weak and unfounded, the judge would most likely dismiss the case outright. If there is, however, a finding of probable cause, the judge may either reduce or retain the charges made by the prosecutor...
Read more