As a witness, being cross examined can be daunting. Many of the key points previously made during direct testimony elicited by a familiar lawyer are suddenly being picked apart by opposing counsel. Maybe the lawyer on cross is trying to cast doubt about the motivations of the testifying witness. One of the most common approaches is to question the witness’s recollection of the key events in the case. Unearthing bias and motives to testify a certain way can be an effective cross-examination to get under the skin of a witness. And oftentimes the lawyer will switch up the pacing of his or her questioning to trip up the witness. Certain jargon can be used to “trap” a witness and get them to admit something they otherwise wouldn’t concede. Lawyers can change their tone of the questioning to try and catch a witness off guard. Some lawyers understand the rule of social reciprocity, which is a psychological tactic used to try and get the witness to say more than they otherwise would to please opposing counsel. Being called a liar, having your motives questioned, psychological warfare, doesn’t it all sound fun? There are many ways to prep a witness for the onslaught of a grueling cross-examination, as ways to effectively handle a withering cross are numerous. But one of the first things to tell a witness is that any type of direct sparring with opposing counsel is off limits. While appealing on a personal level since no one likes having their words distorted and being attacked on the stand, restraint must be made in order for the jury to embrace the witness’s testimony.

This is not to suggest a witness should avoid defending oneself from a tough cross. But it should never become fierce or personal, because when the witness fires back at the lawyer and the two are fighting it out in the mud, the lawyer has won and the witness has lost major ground. Why? Jurors come in to the process with all sorts of expectations. They understand that it is the job of the lawyer to rattle a witness, to get under their skin and cause irritation. Lawyers fight. An effective witness does not take the bait and remains calm and above the fray. Matching wits with the lawyer is a rare feat from a witness on the stand, and the lawyer is the one asking the questions and can get the judge to weigh in if a witness is not answering the question at hand. Jurors already have a pretty low opinion of lawyers, and as mentioned, expect them to engage in verbal jousting to unnerve a witness. Jurors do not accord the witness the same type of leeway on the stand. No juror envies a witness on the stand enduring cross examination, and most jurors would tend to connect with the witness as opposed to the lawyer asking the questions. But at the end of the day, certain expectations are either met or violated, and when the witness engages in unnecessary verbal combat with the lawyer, it is the lawyer who comes off as victorious and the witness has lost credibility.