Don’t Chase Conclusions
One of the biggest mistakes advocates make in both deposition and cross examination is chasing conclusions rather than establishing useful facts.
An unsupported conclusion is often worth less than an advocate thinks it will be, and conclusions are often harder to get than facts. A witness is generally knowledgeable enough about her case and prepared enough to recognize harmful conclusions, and the witness will fight to avoid giving one.
But it’s much harder to fight in the weeds, fact by fact. Even the best-prepared witness has difficulty shading a story effectively when you get into the weeds. They can avoid conclusions and repeat the story they were coached to tell. But it’s almost impossible to identify each and every twist and turn that story will take under questioning. So it’s almost always more effective to hit the witness with simple, fact-based questions attacking the story from all angles. If the witness’s story is false (or partially false), it will be very difficult to hold up against such an attack.
And you’re more likely to get a witness to agree to your conclusion after you’ve blown up the witness’s story with a factual attack anyway. Focus on facts; don’t chase conclusions.
