| Home | Products | About Us | Contact Us | Our Foundation | Our Other Companies | Pay Invoice |
|
Criminal Law Books
Attacking Drunk Driving Tests $119 NEW Criminal Defense Tools and Techniques $129 Defending Drinking Drivers $129 Federal Criminal Practice $119 Federal Forfeiture Guide service $225
Federal Sentencing
Guide FL Criminal Cases Notebook $125 FL Criminal Trial Procedure $99 FORECITE California service $295 NEW Innovative DUI Trial Tools $99
Relentless Criminal Cross- 9th Circuit Criminal Law Reporter service $250 TX Criminal Lawyer's Handbook $129
99 Free Articles,
All new articles are Criminal Law and
Practice Challenging Written Statements Cross-Examination of Eyewitnesses Federal Criminal Practice Pretrial Release on Conditions Drunk Driving
NEW
4 DUI Jury
Instructions You Need to Argue Attacking Field Sobriety Tests Attacking Widmark Calculations Cross Examination in Drunk Driving Cases
NEW
DUI Trial Tips Pattern Openings for DUI Attorneys Selecting a Favorable DUI Jury Voir Dire Questions for DUI Lawyers
Informal Request for Discovery from Prosecution Motions to Exclude Chemical Test Civil Litigation Breach of Contract Defense Interrogatories Deposing the Corporate Designee in Health Insurance Denial Case NEW Essential Objections Checklist Fraud and Misrepresentation Interrogatories Interrogatories: Breach of Contract NEW Interrogatories: Interference with Business Relations Interrogatories for Proving Plaintiff’s Cause of Action in an Auto Accident Case Preparing to Take or Defend a Liability Deposition Summarizing Personal Injury Damages Wrongful Death Interrogatories California Civil Litigation NEW Elements with Complaint: Breach of Contract for Failure to Perform NEW Elements: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing NEW Objecting to Expert Testimony Employment Defending Plaintiff's Deposition NEW Deposing the HR Manager in RIF Cases Deposing the Supervisor/Harasser NEW Document Requests in Sexual Harassment
NEW
Fair Labor
Standards Act Jury Instructions Fee Arrangements, with Clauses Shaping the Unripe Employment Cases NEW Supervisor Deposition Questions for Harassment, Retaliation, and ADA Estate Planning
and Advantages and Disadvantages of QTIP Trusts Client Intake, with Retainer Agreement Drafting for Incapacity, with 4 Clauses Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust, with Provision International Asset Protection Trust IRS Reporting and International Asset Protection Trusts Protecting Beneficiaries with Spendthrift Clauses Risks and Abuses with Foreign Trusts Shifting Trusts and Disclaimers, with Four Sample Clauses Family Personal Injury NEW 3 Motions in Limine to Exclude Junk Accident Reconstruction Science Cross-Examining the Defense Orthopedic Surgeon Debunking Claims of Exaggeration and Malingering Deposing and Examining the Economist Deposing the DME in Spine Injuries Deposing the Store Manager in a Slip and Fall Case Social Security
Disability NEW Alternate Sitting and Standing Questions for the VE Attacking the Vocational Expert’s Testimony on the Number of Jobs Classifying a Claimant’s Previous Work Experience as Past Relevant Work Cross-Examination on U.S. Publishing Data Cross-Examination of Vocational Expert on Census Data Dealing with Drug Addiction or Alcoholism in Social Security Disability Claims Framework of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines Hearing Questions on Physical Residual Functional Capacity Information Required to Perform a Step-Four Analysis
NEW
Initial Hearing
Questions for Claimant Maximum Residual Functional Capacity Possible for Disability Finding
NEW
Protect Attorney’s Fees From
Being Taken to Pay Client’s Debts Pushing Back the Date the Claimant Became Disabled NEW Residual Functional Capacity in Musculoskeletal Impairments Social Security Disability Benefits: Answers to Common Questions Transferability of Skills: Principles and Cross Examination Using the Occupational Outlook Handbook in your Cross Examination
|
Cross-Examination of Eyewitnesses Confront the facts; do not downplay the terror of the incident. by Kevin J. Mahoney Excerpted from Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination
I. Attack Conditions Under Which Victim
Made Initial Observation §6:01 Governing Principles Eyewitness testimony is the product of the conditions under which the eyewitness made the observation and his ability to recall what he observed. External conditions include lighting, rain, fog, and obstacles. Internal conditions also affect a person’s ability to perceive, understand, or even see an event. An event may trigger memories of a past event (similar or not), fears real and imagined, ambitions, obligations, and self-doubts. A thousand inner voices, images, and thoughts may flood the eyewitness’s mind, competing with each other and overriding his ability to make sense of what his eyes and ears tell him. After the event, visually unsettling images—ambulances, blood, angry police officers, crying victims—bombard the eyewitness, interfering with his ability to process the event and thereby obscuring and blurring the images. As the witness sees a crime being committed, especially a violent crime, his mind may race: “Should I interfere?” “Should I try to stop him?” “Is that a gun?” “He’s awfully big.” “Will he kill me?” “Am I a coward?” “I’m not a police officer.” A witness’s inner struggle and inner demons may prevent him from really seeing what is happening right before his eyes. What a witness sees will not be enhanced by his memory; instead, it will only be further compromised. The mind does not store complete digital images that it can reproduce on command. A memory may grow hazy over time or it may be altered—by the pressures or desire to recall it and, perhaps, to make that recollection fit “the facts.” Many eyewitnesses’ memories magically improve over time. An unrealistic conviction in the accuracy of their memory gradually replaces the uncertainty they felt following the incident. During cross-examination, the eyewitness is unlikely to admit that he could be incorrect. §6:02 Strategy
For many defense attorneys, there is a pathological, often counterproductive, need to make a robbery or attack seem less terrible or frightening than the impression created by the prosecutor or the victim. While there is the possibility that, if the impression is left unchallenged, the jury will be so angry at the gravity of the crime they will rush to crucify your client, by downplaying the circumstances in a case involving an eyewitness, you make the ordeal seem less threatening and, thereby, undermine your contention that the witness’s faculties were overridden with emotion. Moreover, downplaying the terror of the incident may lead the jury to believe that you believe your client is guilty and are hoping the jury won’t be too hard on him because the crime wasn’t as bad as claimed. By confronting the facts, you demonstrate that you have no fear of them. I begin the cross-examination of the bystander by establishing the basic facts to illustrate just how terrible this ordeal was for him. Since he will likely anticipate that I am attempting just the opposite, he may exaggerate these facts—to my benefit. Interestingly, in this case, the goal isn’t just to undermine the jury’s confidence in the bystander’s claims, but to enhance the credibility of the victim. §6:03 Angles of Attack
§6:04 Cross-Examination §6:04.1 Robbery was a terrible
ordeal for witness. Q: In broad daylight, an individual pulled out a
sawed-off shotgun? A: Yes. Q: And pointed it at Mrs. Webster? A: Yes. Q: You saw the gun? A: Yes. Q: You stared at the gun? A: Yes. Q: Mrs. Webster was a frail, elderly woman? A: Yes. Q: She let out a yelp? A: That’s right. Q: The robber reached out and grabbed her
pocketbook? A: Yes. Q: But Mrs. Webster wouldn’t let go? A: No. Q: The robber screamed at her to let go? A: Yes. Q: He said, “If you don’t let go, I’m gonna blow
your f***ing head off?” A: Yes. Q: You believed he might do it? A: That’s right. Q: You wanted Mrs. Webster to let go of the bag? A: Right, I didn’t want to see her shot. Q: You thought she was being pretty stupid? A: I did. Q: The robber knocked her to the sidewalk? A: Yes. Q: She fell hard? A: Yes. §6:04.2 Witness was immobilized
with fear. PRACTICE POINT: Expose witness’s character. To successfully cross-examine a witness,
particularly an eyewitness, you must crawl into his hide and assess his
character, motives and fears to fully understand his emotional reaction to what
he claims he saw. This cross-examination exposes not just the bystander’s
cowardice, but that he was so overcome by fear that he did not even manage to
dial 911. In contrast, the victim fought back against the robber. In closing,
I’ll argue that the jury should credit the description provided by the
courageous victim, rather than the pathetic bystander.
Q: You wondered if you should come to her aid? A: Well, I... didn’t know what to do. Q: You didn’t want to be shot? A: No. Q: You didn’t want to do anything that would
upset the robber? A: No. Q: He was a maniac? A: Yes. Q: He might just shoot you? A: Right. Q: You did not rush to her aid? A: No. Q: You made no move? A: No. Q: You did not tell the robber to leave her
alone? A: No. Q: You did not yell out “Help!”? A: No, I didn’t. Q: At that moment, you did not call 911? A: No. Q: You did not run? A: No. Q: Your mind was racing? A: Yes, it was. Q: You were immobilized with fear? A: Well, I... I was scared. Q: You were terrified? A: Yes. Q: You neither intervened nor fled? A: No. Q: You were too scared to do either? A: Yes. Q: You were immobilized with fear? A: Yes. §6:04.3 Witness did not look
the robber in the eye. PRACTICE POINT: Eye contact is crucial to identification. When we look at someone, we are drawn to his eyes.
We may note other facial features (such as a large nose or full lips), but
unless the person’s nostrils are flaring or he is smiling, we are primarily
focused on his eyes. We can often identify someone by his eyes only. If shown a
photo of George W. Bush’s squinty eyes alone, I could identify the president. If
shown Bush’s nose or mouth alone, I would be hard-pressed to identify him. There
is something unique and impressive about someone’s eyes. If too intimidated to
meet the robber’s eyes, it’s unlikely the witness did more than glance at his
face. At worst, making such a point on cross gives defense counsel another point
to raise in his closing.
Q: You did not look the robber in the eyes? A: No, but I saw his face. Q: You did not look the robber in the eyes? A: No. Q: You were unable to tell responding police
officers his eye color? A: No, I wasn’t. It happened so fast. Q: You were too intimidated to look the robber in
the eyes? A: I was scared, yes. Q: Too scared to look him in the face? A: Well, yes, I guess. Q: You did nothing more than glance at his face? A: I saw him. It’s your client. Q: You did nothing more than glance at his face? A: I looked long enough. Q: Even though you were too scared and
intimidated to look him in the eyes? A: I know what I saw. §6:04.4 Witness had little time
to observe. Q: The robber grabbed the pocketbook? A: Yes. Q: And fled down the street on foot? A: Yes. Q: And entered a car? A: Yes. Q: Then drove off? A: Yes. Q: The entire incident lasted only a few seconds? A: About 10 seconds. Q: During that 10 seconds, you looked at the
shotgun? A: Yes. Q: It was a real shotgun? A: Yes. Q: Not just a couple of pipes? A: No, a real shotgun. Q: You watched the robber and Mrs. Webster
struggle over the purse? A: Yes. Q: That lasted a few seconds? A: About that. Q: You watched her fall? A: Yes. Q: You wished you could catch her? A: Yes. Q: And you watched the robber run away? A: Yes. Q: All in 10 seconds? A: Yes. Q: Of those 10 seconds, you spent less than two
seconds looking at the robber’s face? A: I saw his face. Q: Of that 10 seconds, you spent less than two
seconds looking at the robber’s face? A: Two or three seconds. Maybe more. Q: And during that two to three seconds, your
mind was racing? A: Well, kind of. Q: Your eyes darted between the robber, the
shotgun, and Mrs. Webster? A: Yes. Q: You didn’t focus on the robber’s face? A: No. Q: So when you say you spent two to three seconds
looking at the robber’s face, you’re really saying you looked at his face for a
total of two to three seconds? A: Well, I mean, I looked at his face. Q: You looked at his face more than once? A: I believe I did. Q: You’re adding together the time, on those two
or three occasions, that you spent looking at his face? A: Yes. Q: So, if you looked at his face on two to three
occasions and spent a total of two to three seconds looking at his face, you
looked at his face on each occasion for no more than a second? A: I guess. It’s difficult to say. Q: At two to three seconds you could do no more
than glance at the robber? A: I... did more than glance. Q: And during these two to three seconds, Mrs.
Webster was trying to wrestle the shotgun from the robber? A: Yes. Q: She was jerking the gun back and forth? A: Yes. Q: And jerking the robber along with her? A: Somewhat. Q: And he was trying to jerk the shotgun away
from Mrs. Webster? A: Yes. Q: They were twisting and turning? A: Yes. Q: Twisting and turning violently? A: Yes. Q: This was a life-and-death struggle? A: Yes, very much so.
TECHNIQUE TIP: Help the jury visualize the struggle. As you ask a question like this, demonstrate how the
two would have been wrestling over the gun.
Q: It was during this life-and-death struggle
that you looked at the robber’s face? A: Mostly. Q: It was this death struggle that drew your
attention to Mrs. Webster and this maniac? A: Yes.
TECHNIQUE TIP: Put a third party in the courtroom. I refer to the robber as a maniac because it
underscores the violence of the encounter, creates a third person, and provides
a marked contrast to my client, who is sitting beside me, well-attired and calm.
Q: You didn’t see the robber approach Mrs.
Webster? A: No. Q: You didn’t see him point the shotgun at her? A: No. Q: When the robber wrestled the gun from Mrs.
Webster, he turned and fled? A: Yes. Q: Running away with his back to you? A: Mostly. Q: So, for the entire time that you observed the
robber, his face was jerking back and forth? A: I guess. Q: And all this time, you’re trying to decide
what to do? A: Well, yes.
§6:04.5 Chaos ensued after
robbery. PRACTICE POINT: Chaos and stress negatively impact recall. If allowed a moment to reflect on something we’ve
read or seen, we are more likely to accurately recall that thing. But if our
observation is immediately followed by chaos and disturbing scenes that unsettle
us, we have a far more difficult time conjuring up the images we saw.
Eyewitnesses, especially untrained eyewitnesses, can be so rattled by the
distressing aftermath of a crime that they cannot reliably recall what they saw.
Use cross-examination to walk the witness through each and every distressing
scene that he endured following the event and, later, use those scenes to argue
that the identification cannot be credited.
Q: As soon as the robber was gone, you ran over
to Mrs. Webster? A: Yes. Q: She was bleeding? A: Yes. Q: She was breathing rapidly? A: Yes. Q: She was emotionally overwrought? A: She seemed to be, yes. Q: Then you called 911? A: Yes. Q: You were speaking rapidly? A: Yes. Q: Trying to hold it together? A: Yes. Q: You yelled for a doctor? A: Yes. Q: People began congregating around you? A: Yes. Q: Crowding you? A: Yes. Q: You said, “Give us some room”? A: Yes. Q: Mrs. Webster was nearly hysterical? A: Yes. Q: You were afraid for her? A: Yes. Q: You stayed with her until the ambulance
arrived? A: Yes. Q: You were stressed? A: Yes, I was. Q: Your heart was beating rapidly? A: Yes. Q: The EMTs examined you? A: Yes. Q: During the minutes that followed the robbery,
you didn’t have time to reflect on what the robber looked like? A: Not immediately. But I did later.
TECHNIQUE TIP: Empathetic cross more effective than confrontation. When a witness takes the stand many months after a
terrifying event, he could be far more composed than he was at the time the
event occurred. Beneath the cool surface, however, he may be a cauldron of
unresolved emotion. Rather than stridently confronting him, empathetically lead
him through the horrifying scene; if he’s been attempting to repress the images
you’re making him relive, your sympathetic demeanor could undo his self-control,
cracking his façade and leaving him awash in emotions that leave the jurors
questioning the accuracy of his observations. If your empathy unleashes no
hidden trauma, you have at least left the jurors with the impression that you
are a decent human being.
Kevin J. Mahoney has won 36 of his last 38 trials. Since 1993 he has practiced solo, specializing entirely in criminal defense. He recently persuaded juries to acquit a broken man of motor vehicle homicide, a father wrongly accused of rape, a woman wrongly accused of bank robbery, a young man falsely accused of assault with intent to rape, and a decent man maliciously charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. He is the author of Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination, from which this article is excerpted. |
Updated 11/09/09