Speaker 1: Lawyers use a lot of different tricks and techniques in order to get opponents and witnesses to say what the lawyers want them to say. Here are some of those tricks and techniques that you can use in your everyday life. Welcome to Legal Briefs. This is attorney Jeremy Hogan. Today we're going to show you some techniques that you can apply in your everyday life that lawyers use in cross-examining witnesses. If you like videos like this, make sure to click the red button below and subscribe to our channel. The first technique we're going to show you is what I call the obvious yes technique. This is where you ask a set of general questions where the answer is obviously yes, which leads up to the question where your witness or your opponent wants to answer no, but because has been saying yes all along will want to answer yes, or the jury will infer that the answer should be yes. These techniques are going to be much easier to demonstrate to you if we use an example. So the example we're going to use is a car accident case. Now, for example, I know that the person I'm deposing or my witness was driving with one hand on the steering wheel at the time of the accident. So the question I want to ask is don't you think it would be safer or wouldn't have been safer if you were driving with two hands on those steering wheel? Now, if you just come out and ask that question, it's too obvious and the opponent or the witness is going to say no, I always drive with one hand on the steering wheel. It's very safe for me to do so. So we don't address the question directly, but we use the obvious yes technique instead. So this is what the obvious yes technique would look like in practice. Ms. Creel, you think it's important to drive safely, don't you? Yes. And you would agree with me that you need to be aware of your surroundings as you're driving, wouldn't you? Yes. And do you agree with me that it's important to maintain a safe speed while you're driving? Yes. And while driving, you would want to do everything that you could do in your power to keep yourself, your passengers, and other people on the road safe, wouldn't you? Yes. So then wouldn't you agree with me that it had been better at the time of the accident if you had been driving with two hands on the steering wheel instead of just one hand on the steering wheel? So now here the witness can answer the final question no, but by the repetitive nature of the yes questions, then the answer obviously is yes is the better answer. And if she answers no, it raises a question in the jury's mind. Also, if she answers any of the obvious yes questions no, then she comes across as callous and uncaring and for me as the examiner, it's a win-win situation. The next technique I'd like to show you is what I call the uncomfortable silence technique. People don't like silence and when you leave them in silence, they tend to want to fill it with something more talking. So the technique involves simply asking the question, waiting for the initial answer, and then after the initial answer being quiet, looking at your papers, looking down, looking at them again, as though you expect them to continue talking. You'll be surprised. People tend to keep talking and sometimes what you learn when they keep talking is the most important thing of all. So this is what the uncomfortable silence technique looks like generally in practice. Ms. Creel, at the time of the accident, why were you driving with one hand? I don't really remember. Well, I mean, my right arm had been bugging me a little bit, so it could have been that. So now the witness has just disclosed something that we might have not otherwise known, namely that her right arm was bugging her a little bit and that's why she was driving with only her left arm. That's something we could use a closing argument to say that she was driving impaired. The last technique we'd like to show you is what I call the analogy. The analogy is when you get someone to agree with you in one context and then switch it on them to the context in which a case is involved. So this is what the analogy technique would look like in practice. Ma'am, have you ever shot a gun before? Yes. A handgun? Handguns and shotguns. In your experience, is it possible to shoot a handgun with only one hand like they do in the movies? Definitely. Do you ever fire a handgun or have you ever fired a handgun with only one hand? I've probably tried once. Are you more accurate with two hands? Absolutely. And are you less likely to drop the gun if you're using two hands? Yes. Wouldn't you agree with me that generally it is much safer to shoot a gun with two hands than one hand? Yes, generally it would be safer. Wouldn't you agree with me that in this case while driving your vehicle it would have been safer if you had been driving with two hands rather than just one hand? Now it's not always that easy to get the witness to agree with you, but if you start with an analogy that really can't be argued against, then once you have them agree to the analogy it becomes very difficult for them to disagree with you when you bring it to your case that you're trying to get them to admit something to. There you have it. Three cross-examination techniques. The obvious yes technique, the uncomfortable silence technique, and the analogy technique. I hope that you can use them in your everyday life.