Speaker 1: When a lawyer hears the judge's ruling towards the end of a long trial, the account given by the witness was full of inaccuracies. I found their evidence unconvincing and unreliable. Well, that's music to the winning lawyer's ears. The lawyer knows at that moment they did an effective job during witness cross-examination, undermining and destroying the witness's credibility. So how do lawyers do it? Especially when the issue of credibility in some trials before a judge, with or without a jury, is really important, coming down to one person's word against another, where there's no other witnesses, CCTV, documentary or telephone evidence to support one side against the other. Who assaulted who? Which driver caused the road traffic collision? What was the profit share verbally agreed between the parties? So here's the seven secret ways lawyers destroy a witness's credibility at trial. Clients often say to their lawyer, that witness is coming to court and he's going to lie to get me into trouble. Now behind every lie is a malicious motive, and that malicious motive is not about when the lawyer reads the witness statement. So it's crucial for prep work to be done by the lawyer to take their client's comment about the witness and their statement to see if that nuclear option, you're lying aren't you, can be pressed during cross-examination. Lawyers know by drawing out the underlying mean and hate-filled reason of a witness during cross-examination is probably the best way to destroy the witness's credibility and win a case. You're feeling aggrieved that your ex-partner is living with someone else, aren't you? You're blaming the other driver because you don't want to be disqualified, isn't that right? You're taking advantage of your one-time friend for profit, correct? This line of cross-examination bringing out the narrative of malicious and lying witness is high stakes and can make for great courtroom drama. But it has its downsides too. The lawyer may come across as a bully to the jury, making unfounded accusations that's bad for the case. But if it can be pulled off, and the court believes the witness is insincere, and better still has a malicious motive behind their witness testimony, job done, case closed. In truth though, most trials aren't about saying the angelic-looking witness is an outright liar, even if the trial lawyer is tempted to take out the witness in this way. A more subtle strategy of cross-examination is employed to make a closing speech which basically concludes the witness account honestly given is sadly honestly mistaken. This is a slow burn cross-examination, dry, boring, drip-drip doubts put into the minds of the jury, creating a narrative that the witness's powers of observation and senses were distracted or disrupted because of the noise happening all around the witness or an obstruction in the line of their sight and sound. Take an assault outside a restaurant. You were looking at your glass of Coke, right? You were talking to a girl, correct? She was good-looking, yes? She was on your left? The music was being played, right? It was played loudly, yes? You began a conversation with the girl. That's true, isn't it? When you began talking to the girl, there was a table between you and the defendant, correct? About 10 metres away, wouldn't you agree? And then a waiter came to clear up your drinks, right? Around your table, correct? Cross-examination here is not so much about what the witness sees and hears. The lawyer already knows that from reading the witness' statement, but cross-examination is to paint a fuller picture of context, a witness distracted, unfocused, confused, inattentive, or of a witness whose senses are disrupted by obstacles and obstructions in the way of the witness's line of sight and sound. Both lines of cross-examination are used to say to the jury, don't accept the witness' testimony as being accurate. It's not surprising that witnesses jump up and down on any inconsistencies connected with the witness. Inherent inconsistent comments made during the witness' testimony, inconsistency between what the witness said during evidence and previous statements given, or inconsistent comments between the witness and other witnesses or other evidences like documents, CCTV footage and messages. Lawyers exploit inconsistencies to show the witness is mistaken or lying, that's the nuclear option remember, or with a bit of witness selective memory called a biased witness in favour of one side against the other. Lawyers detail every inconsistency in closing to the court to argue this witness is biased and unreliable, their testimony cannot be believed to set out the true account of what happened. That true account, members of the jury, is set out by my client. Sometimes lawyers look at the evidence served before the trial and sometimes think to themselves, is this witness for real? You say you were punched with a hard fist to your face, didn't you? Repeatedly punched three times, right? Making contact to your right eye, correct? But that photo you produced shows no visible black eye, does it? To say to the court the witness wasn't punched at all, lawyers cross-examination from the content of the question to the tone of the voices to spell out to the court how exaggerated, ludicrous, complete utter nonsense the claims the witness is making. Discrediting witnesses' recollection of events can be done in two basic ways during cross-examination. Playing on the passage of time which has elapsed between the incident and the court date and or exploring drink and drugs taken by the witness at the time. In your statement you say you drank a whole bottle of vodka, that's right, isn't it? Within two hours, right? The lawyer doesn't have to ask that final question. Your memories of that incident has been affected by drink, hasn't it? Because awkward witnesses are just going to flatly deny it and it's obvious that the witness' recollection of events is confused. The better way is for the lawyer to keep safe in their pocket and remind the jury of the witness' response to discredit the memory of the witness in their closing speech. There are witnesses who come to court thinking they're going to be in absolute bee's knees in command and control, confident that they know what to say and how to say it. Wrong. The bigger the ego they have, the harder they fall. Lawyers are good at discrediting these type of witnesses by seizing upon not what the witness can remember clearly but what they can't remember at all. So you can remember the punch but you can't remember what you said. You can remember the driver pulling out but not your speed. You can remember when he said he agreed to share profits 80-20 in your favour but not how much you've invested in the business. Lawyers who highlight and play on the witness' selective memory recall make the witness look defensive and evasive like they have something to hide about what really happened. Each time the witness answers with a I don't know, I can't remember when they should know and they should remember they just are burying their credibility in the eyes of the court. An abusive and swearing witness, a witness who threatens the lawyer or even a flash of uncontrolled anger by the witness during a heated cross-examination in front of the judge and jury can make a witness look bad. And a bad-looking witness is a mad-looking witness. You heard the rumour about your wife's friendship with my client, didn't you? You didn't bother to say after the accident, are you okay, did you? Would those you do business with call you heartless? Effective lawyers basically wind up witnesses with character assassination type cross-examination slights and mickey-take questions. If the witness takes the bait, the lawyer can turn an alleged victim into as James Cagney used to say, a downright dirty yellow belly rat. So, in short, the seven secret ways lawyers destroy a witness's credibility is to show the witnesses one or more of the following in their closing speech. They're lying, they're mistaken, they're unreliable, they're implausible they're forgetful, they're misleading or they're just plain mad, or words to that effect. Thank you for watching, speak to a solicitor if you need legal advice remember to subscribe to Community Legal Education and may the justice be with you.