*/
What are the advocate’s emotional drivers when conducting a cross-examination, wonders Professor Penny Cooper. The ability to continually assess the witness’s demeanour and adjust one’s questioning is crucial, she concludes.
In 1905 in The Art of Cross-examination, Francis Wellman wrote “It requires the greatest ingenuity; a habit of logical thought; clearness of perception in general; infinite patience and self-control; power to read men’s minds intuitively, to judge of their character by their faces, to appreciate their motives; ability to act with force and precision; a masterful knowledge of the subject-matter itself; an extreme caution; and, above all, the instinct to discover the weak point in the witness under cross-examination.”
Which is the most difficult aspect of that to learn? Some might say “patience and self control”. As human beings our behaviour is governed not just by our thoughts but by our emotions as well. Cross-examining can evoke strong emotions in the advocate. Good advocates will be aware of those emotions and keep them in-check. Sometimes there are mixed emotions. For instance the start of cross-examination may give rise to both apprehension (“Will it go to plan?”) and at the same time excitement (“Just think how great this could be!”).
Emotional drivers
I am not aware of any research into the emotional drivers of the cross-examiner but it’s interesting to ponder what they might be. Do we enjoy arguing?
In his book Emotions Revealed Dr Paul Ekman suggests that some people enjoy feeling anger: “They seek a good argument; hostile exchanges and verbal attacks are exciting and satisfying.” Do we like the feeling of getting angry – on behalf of the client and in a good cause, of course?
Cross-examination is a chance to expose the flaws in your opponent’s case theory, to impress instructing solicitors with clever questions, to expose a mistaken or lying witness, to come out on top – evidentially speaking. Cross-examination is exciting, it gets the adrenaline flowing and heart pumping faster. It can make you feel great. It can also make you feel lousy. As cross-examination proceeds frustration or annoyance may set in; perhaps the witness starts to explain away anomalies, or conveniently can’t remember a particular fact or they simply resolutely stick to their story whatever you ask.
The cross-examiner’s emotions may become apparent from the way he/she asks the questions. I remember one time in the High Court when I was cross-examining a man who I thought was odious; I was giving him a hostile “thousand-yard stare”. He stopped midway through my cross-examination and said to the judge: “I am not answering any more of her questions – I don’t like the way she is looking at me.” The judge, who hadn’t seen the look I was giving the witness, immediately told him that if he refused to answer my questions he would be held in contempt of court. That made me feel good, but was I showing a lack of consideration?
Cross-examination techniques
Of course sometimes witnesses get the better of their cross-examiners, even the brilliant ones. Geoffrey Robertson QC recalls in his 1999 memoirs, The Justice Game: “I played to the gallery; I deployed sarcasm, the lowest form of wit; and I asked a question to which I did not know the answer. Pointing an accusing finger to the young customs officer who had code-named the operation, I declaimed, ‘You called this operation “Tiger”, did you not, because that name was redolent of swaggering machismo?’ The officer replied: ‘Well, no sir. Actually, I named it after my cat’.”
When George Carman QC was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman about his career he said: “... the horrid man image would come from the mistaken idea that the barrister is there bullying people all the time, leaning on them unfairly, taking advantage of them in the witness box. That’s the way to lose a case. If you have a simple, truthful person, you can never bully them into changing their story if they’re telling the truth. The technique to be used in questioning people will vary enormously. If they think they can stand up to it – like Aitken or like a Neil Hamilton, who had been a government minister, fluent speaker, intelligent man, barrister, and so on – those people can well take it on the chin and hit back. But of course, if you have a more simple soul, you don’t lean on them. You ask questions that may probe, but you don’t want the jury ever to think that you are being unfair or oppressive.”
Evaulation and readjustment
Each witness is different. The assessment is ongoing since the witness’s demeanour may change during cross-examination and if that happens, the cross-examiner may have correspondingly to adjust his cross-examination. It all goes to emphasise that 105 years on, Wellman is still right: “ingenuity”, “caution” and “self-control”.
Professor Penny Cooper, barrister, is Associate Dean and Director of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and Knowledge Transfer at the City Law School
Which is the most difficult aspect of that to learn? Some might say “patience and self control”. As human beings our behaviour is governed not just by our thoughts but by our emotions as well. Cross-examining can evoke strong emotions in the advocate. Good advocates will be aware of those emotions and keep them in-check. Sometimes there are mixed emotions. For instance the start of cross-examination may give rise to both apprehension (“Will it go to plan?”) and at the same time excitement (“Just think how great this could be!”).
Emotional drivers
I am not aware of any research into the emotional drivers of the cross-examiner but it’s interesting to ponder what they might be. Do we enjoy arguing?
In his book Emotions Revealed Dr Paul Ekman suggests that some people enjoy feeling anger: “They seek a good argument; hostile exchanges and verbal attacks are exciting and satisfying.” Do we like the feeling of getting angry – on behalf of the client and in a good cause, of course?
Cross-examination is a chance to expose the flaws in your opponent’s case theory, to impress instructing solicitors with clever questions, to expose a mistaken or lying witness, to come out on top – evidentially speaking. Cross-examination is exciting, it gets the adrenaline flowing and heart pumping faster. It can make you feel great. It can also make you feel lousy. As cross-examination proceeds frustration or annoyance may set in; perhaps the witness starts to explain away anomalies, or conveniently can’t remember a particular fact or they simply resolutely stick to their story whatever you ask.
The cross-examiner’s emotions may become apparent from the way he/she asks the questions. I remember one time in the High Court when I was cross-examining a man who I thought was odious; I was giving him a hostile “thousand-yard stare”. He stopped midway through my cross-examination and said to the judge: “I am not answering any more of her questions – I don’t like the way she is looking at me.” The judge, who hadn’t seen the look I was giving the witness, immediately told him that if he refused to answer my questions he would be held in contempt of court. That made me feel good, but was I showing a lack of consideration?
Cross-examination techniques
Of course sometimes witnesses get the better of their cross-examiners, even the brilliant ones. Geoffrey Robertson QC recalls in his 1999 memoirs, The Justice Game: “I played to the gallery; I deployed sarcasm, the lowest form of wit; and I asked a question to which I did not know the answer. Pointing an accusing finger to the young customs officer who had code-named the operation, I declaimed, ‘You called this operation “Tiger”, did you not, because that name was redolent of swaggering machismo?’ The officer replied: ‘Well, no sir. Actually, I named it after my cat’.”
When George Carman QC was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman about his career he said: “... the horrid man image would come from the mistaken idea that the barrister is there bullying people all the time, leaning on them unfairly, taking advantage of them in the witness box. That’s the way to lose a case. If you have a simple, truthful person, you can never bully them into changing their story if they’re telling the truth. The technique to be used in questioning people will vary enormously. If they think they can stand up to it – like Aitken or like a Neil Hamilton, who had been a government minister, fluent speaker, intelligent man, barrister, and so on – those people can well take it on the chin and hit back. But of course, if you have a more simple soul, you don’t lean on them. You ask questions that may probe, but you don’t want the jury ever to think that you are being unfair or oppressive.”
Evaulation and readjustment
Each witness is different. The assessment is ongoing since the witness’s demeanour may change during cross-examination and if that happens, the cross-examiner may have correspondingly to adjust his cross-examination. It all goes to emphasise that 105 years on, Wellman is still right: “ingenuity”, “caution” and “self-control”.
Professor Penny Cooper, barrister, is Associate Dean and Director of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and Knowledge Transfer at the City Law School
What are the advocate’s emotional drivers when conducting a cross-examination, wonders Professor Penny Cooper. The ability to continually assess the witness’s demeanour and adjust one’s questioning is crucial, she concludes.
In 1905 in The Art of Cross-examination, Francis Wellman wrote “It requires the greatest ingenuity; a habit of logical thought; clearness of perception in general; infinite patience and self-control; power to read men’s minds intuitively, to judge of their character by their faces, to appreciate their motives; ability to act with force and precision; a masterful knowledge of the subject-matter itself; an extreme caution; and, above all, the instinct to discover the weak point in the witness under cross-examination.”
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen