The Art of Cross-Examination

gnorance or partisanship, and more or less unintentionally, had testified to a mistaken state of facts injurious to our side of the litigation. In the prese

rs of actual experience. What can be conceived more difficult in advocacy than the task of proving a witness, whom you may neit

int, however, on which the whole case may turn-is wilfully false. If, at the end of his direct testimony, we conclude that the witness we have to cross-exam

called upon to testify before a room full of people, with lawyers on all sides ready to ridicule or abuse-often occasions embarrassment in witnesses of the highest integrity. Then again some people are constitu

f language not suited to their station in life. On the other hand, there is something about the manner of an honest but ignorant witness that makes it at once manifest to an experienced lawyer that he is narrating only the things that he has actually seen and heard. The expression of the face changes with the nar

n from recollection, he will be sure to succumb to this method. He has no facts with which to associate the wording of his story; he can only call it to mind as a whole, and not in detachments. Draw his attention to other facts entirely disassociated with the main story as told by himself. He will be entirely unprepared for these new inquiries, and will draw upon his imagination for answers. Distract his thoughts again to some new part of his main story and then suddenly, when his mind is upon another subject, return to those considerations to which you

case was based. Mr. Mason led the witness round to his statement, and again it was repeated verbatim. Then, without warning, he walked to the stand, and pointing straight at the witness said, in his high, impassioned voice, 'Let's see that paper you've got in your waistcoat pocket!' Taken com

Mr. Mason, 'I thought he gave that part of his testimony just as if he'd heard it, and I noticed every ti

fter my own experience, meet all the lawyers I have ever known combined in a case, than to meet him alone and single-handed." Maso

es not appear in a more or less flagrant form. Nothing in the trial of a cause is so difficult as to expose the perjury of a witness whose intelligence enables him to hide his lack of scruple. There are various methods of attempting it, but no uniform rule can be laid down as to the proper manner to be displayed toward such a witnes

to be an impartial inquirer seeking information, looked surprised at what the witness said, appeared even grateful for the additional light thrown on the case. 'Ah, indeed! Well, as you have said so much, perhaps you can help us a little further. Well, really, my Lord, this is a ver

His great weapon was ridicule. He laughed at the witness and made everybody else laugh. The witn

himself out of his own mouth. It is seldom useful to press him on matters with which he is familiar. It is the safer course to question him

ines, is quoted from Judge J. W. Donovan's "Tact in Court." It is doubly inter

way from the scene of the killing, which was witnessed by Sovine. The proof was so strong that, even with an excel

rial came on to an early hearing. No objection was made to the jury, and no cross-examination of witnesses, save the last and only importa

to wonder why 'Abraham remained silent so long and why he didn't do something!' The people finally rested. The tall lawyer (Li

with Lockwood just befor

ess.

you stood ver

, about twent

it not have b

it was twenty

'In the op

'No, in th

'What kind

. 'Beech

on it are rather

ss. 'R

think this pistol

'It look

endant shoot-see how the bar

ess.

ar was this to th

ee-quarters of

Where were

by the minis

ee-quarters of

es,-I answer

see a candle there, wit

hat would we wan

then, did you se

y moonlight!

s of a mile from the lights-saw the pistol barrel-saw the man fire-saw it twent

es, I told y

-covered almanac from his side coat pocket-opened it slowly-offered it in evidence-showed it to the jury and the court-r

ced him to swear away so falsely the life of one who never did him harm!' With such determined emphasis did Lincoln present his showing that the court ordered S

in his story, where-in his answer to the final question "Which?"-he will have to choose either one or the other of the

securities in the broker's possession, which she alleged belonged to her. Her husband took the witness-stand and swore that he had deposited the securities with the stock-broker as colla

had either consented to her husband's use of the bonds, or else was a partner with h

ations in Wall Street I presume you contemplated the po

e, I went into Wall Street to

admit, will you not, that sometimes the s

, yes, I sup

bonds were not your own p

s. "Ye

end them to you for purposes of speculation

s. "Ye

your broker as collateral against your stock speculations, you did

mention whose prop

he market going against you and your collateral being sold to meet

a New York jury was found who were willing to give a verdi

he witness into such "traps" as these. If you have accomplished one such coup, be content with the point yo

rsistence. If you fail in one quarter, abandon it and try something else. There is surely a weak spot somewhere, if the story is perjured. Frame your questions skilfully. Ask them as if you wanted a certain answer, when in reality you desire just the opposite one. "Hold your own temper while you lead the witn

rdly be a question, but that it could be proved untrue was extremely doubtful and an almost hopeless task. It was an improbable story, but still was not an absolutely impossible one. If true, however, the claimant was the veritable Roger Tichborne, or at least the probabilities would be so immensely in favor of that supposition that no jury would agree in finding that he was Arthur Orton. His manner of giving his evidence was perfect. After the trial one of the jurors was asked what he thought of Lu

setback from which only the most experienced advocate can readily recover. Before the judge spoke, the jury, perhaps, were already a little tired and inattentive and anxious to finish the case; they were just in the mood to agree with the remark of his Honor, and the "ATMOSPHERE of the case," as I have always termed it,

o apt to be blinded by his political prejudices that where the guilt or innocence of the prisoner at the Bar turns upon the question as to whether th

ial in the Supreme Court criminal term, before Mr. Justice Barrett. The prisoners were to be defended by various leading trial lawyers, and everything depended upon the result of the first few cases tried. If these trials resulted in acquitt

of the election districts was the first man called for trial. The charge against him was the failure to record correctly the vote cast in his district for the Republican candidate for ald

t for that district, signed by the prisoner, was then put in evidence, which read: Democratic votes, 167; Republican, 0. There were a number of witnesses called by the defence who were Democrats. The case began to take on a political aspect, wh

position before the jury that no matter what their politics might be,

seven children depending upon you for support. I presume y

"Most assu

presume you have no particular desire to s

"Certainly

tizens take the witness-stand and swear they voted t

r. "Yes

lve respectable gentlemen sitting here ready to pass j

r. "I d

gentlemen (pointing to jury) how it was that the ballots cast by the other twelve gentlemen were

down his eyes, but made no

ollowing few days nearly thirty defendants, indicted for similar offences, pleaded guilty, and the enti

ils of his direct testimony can be correctly anticipated, a trap may be set into whi

ago is said to have remarked, "Any lawyer who attempts to cross-examine Dr. Ranney is a fool." A case occurred a few years before Dr. Ranney died, however, where a failure to cross-examine would have been tantamount to a confession of

tically bedridden for the three years leading up to the day of trial. She was brought into the court room in a chair and was placed in front of the jury, a pallid, pitiable object, surrounded b

aimed that her spine had been permanently in

nal marrow itself. Judge Davis asked him a few preliminary questions, and then gave the doctor his head and let him "turn to the jury and tell them all about it." Dr. Ranney spoke uninterruptedly for nearly three-quarters of an hour. He described in detail the sufferings of his patient since she had been under his care; his efforts to relieve her pain; the hopeless nature of her malady

her complaint as "hysterical," existing in the patient's mind alone, and not indicating nor involving a single diseased organ; but the jury evidently all believed Dr. Ranney, and were anxious to render a verdict on his testimony. He must be cross-examined. Absolute

years, for the New York Central R. R. forty years, for the New York and Harlem River R. R. twenty years, for the Erie R. R. fifteen years, and so on until the doctor was forced to admit that he wa

any medical authority that agrees with you when you say that the particular

s, Dr. Ericson

s Dr. Ericson,

ably one of the most famous surgeons that England has ever produce

at book has

son on the Spine,' which is altogether the best known work

n was this bo

bout ten y

occupied as you have told us yours is, has leisure enough t

ome such foolish question; so this morning after my breakfast, and before starting for court, I took down from my library my copy of Ericson

son on the Spine," and walking deliberately up to the witness). "Won't you be

Oh, I can't do it now;

that thinking I might ask you some such foolish question, you examined your vo

and still refusing to take the boo

y there is all the

. (no

tness eye each

e to suspend my examination until you shall have had time to turn to the place

(no a

nd counsel for the city didn't want to say anything; he saw that he had caught the witness in a manifest falsehood, and that the doctor's whole testim

and upon his replying that he did not intend to answer it any further than he had already done, he was excused from the witness-stand amid almost breathless silence in t

forget the collapse of the plaintiff's princip