Cross Examinations

A cross examination is when an attorney from one team questions a witness from another team.
The purpose of the cross examination is to do the following:
     1.  Show that the witness's testimony can't be trusted
     2.  Get the witness to concede to your team's arguments.

You do this by a well thought out string of questioning.  First, you find a point you would like to make - i.e., you want Peyton Lancaster to say that the vehicle could have been hydroplaning because there was water on the road from the sprinklers. (2010 Utah MT Case)  You chose questions that you can lead the witness with, i.e., questions that you know how they are going to answer.  You use these to lead the witness into saying something that helps you. 
     The first thing you ask is something foundational - "You are an expert witness, Mr. Lancaster.  Do you know what hydroplaning is and how it affects vehicle control?"  "Yes, I do."
     Then you follow up with something more specific - "Can you tell us how much water and at what speed you need to be going to Hydroplane?"  "Yes.  Hydroplaning requires little water, and can occur at very low speeds, around 25 Mph"  The witness probably won't answer that easily, so you should be prepared to ask something like, "Are you aware that the Associated Association of Motor Vehicles says_________?"  If this contradicts them, or they just don't know, that detracts from their credibility. 
     After that the foundational knowledge stuff, you apply it to the case - "If there was a small amount of water on Legend Parkway, and Riley's vehicle was traveling at least 25 Mph, could it have hydroplaned?"  "Yes, it could have, but it d----" "Thank you.  Moving on..."

At this point, the witness has conceded a point to you, and you don't want to give him a chance to testify for his side.  So you end that line of questioning and move on.  Later, you would take what Mr. Lancaster said, and show that there was water on Legend (as testified to by C.J. Simpson), and the car was going at least 25 mph (as testified to by Officer Knight and Mr. Lancaster).  Then in Closing Statements, you bring out the point that Mr. Lancaster testified that Riley could have been hydroplaning.  That is what makes a good cross examination. 

Often it is hard to find points you want to examine out of a witness.  Here are some things you can start with:
-For an Expert Witness, basics about their profession.  If they are prepared, they will handle these easily, and can even make themselves look good.  It is not suggested that you use these unless you are leading up to a different point, like the example above.
-Look for any contradictions in the case.  If one witness says one thing, and another witness says another, see if you can use that to our advantage.  Or if one witness contradicts himself, ask about that.
-Find important things that help our side, and see if you can get them to say that. 

There is no such thing as a bad line of questioning - there are just some that are a lot better than others.  So write down as many as you can, and find the top five or six good ones.  Some cross examinations only have one line of questions, but don't try to do that.