Trial Techniques – The Art of Cross-Examination Part II

In our first article on the art of cross-examination, we addressed the first objective of cross-examination, that being an effort to obtain evidence which is favorable to one’s case without attacking the witness. The second alternative purpose of cross-examination, which we address in this article, however, is to impeach or corroborate the testimony of another witness in the case. Here, we do not speak of impeaching the witness offering the testimony or otherwise attacking their credibility, but rather impeaching or corroborating the testimony of another key witness in the case. For example, in a medical malpractice case, if an expert is called to testify that certain fetal monitor strips were illegible and therefore not reliable as evidence, if counsel knows that another witness can persuasively contradict such testimony and/or corroborate it as the case may be, the questions should be asked in such a way as to create for the other witness the best opportunity to either corroborate or impeach the testimony that is offered. Thus, the monitoring strips may be proven to have been perfectly legible and thus the jury may have a different view of whether medical malpractice occurred. Again, this is an important purpose of cross-examination, alternative to the main purpose of impeaching or discrediting the witness testifying.