DOCSLIB.ORG

Direct Examination

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Direct Examination WRITTEN MATERIALS FOR: Trial Skills: Direct Examination Presented by Arizona Bankruptcy American Inn of Court Pupillage No. 7 March 14, 2019 ARIZONA COUNTRY CLUB Hon. Eddward P. Ballinger Don Fletcher Philip J. Giles D. Lamar Hawkins Scott W. Hyder Tami Johnson Patrick F. Keery Trudy Nowak Michael Rolland Khaled Tarazi DIRECT EXAMINATIONS I. GENERAL MATTERS A. The usual way of introducing evidence at trial on disputed issues is by obtaining the answers of a witness in open court in response to nonleading questions by counsel. The straight narrative of a witness has the advantages of naturalness and freedom from interruption. B. Usually the plaintiff/movant has the burden of proof and must initially present the case in chief by introducing facts sufficient to establish each controverted element of the claim asserted. – known as putting on a prima facie case. Plaintiff brings forward successively all witnesses on whom plaintiff will rely to establish these facts, together with the documents and other tangible evidence, which will be offered when the witnesses authenticate the tangible evidence through testimony, as required by FRE 901. C. Purpose of direct examination is to establish the factual and legal basis of the case. Counsel stands in as the surrogate for the fact-finder and asks the questions that are necessary to elicit the relevant facts. D. Redirect examination may be allowed after cross-examination to deal with new facts or to rehabilitate a witness. Questions on redirect cannot exceed the scope of the cross-examination. A witness may be asked with questions designed to explain apparent inconsistencies between statements made on direct and cross, or to deny or explain the making of an alleged prior inconsistent statement. FRE 613. Counsel should not ask on redirect whether the witness’s testimony on direct was the truth. E. Consider requesting exclusion of a witness during testimony of another witness. FRE 615. F. Consider requesting that a witness be sequestered during recesses that interrupt the witness’ testimony to prevent improper attempts to influence the witness. See Geders v. U.S., 425 U.S. 80 (1976). FRE 611. II. FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 611 A. Extremely encompassing rule speaking to the variety of aspects of the mode and order of interrogation and presentation of evidence at trial. B. FRE 611(a) provides generally for the exercise of reasonable control by the court over the mode and presentation of evidence. C. FRE 611(b) limits the scope of cross-examination to the subject matter of direct and matters of credibility. D. FRE 611(c) delineates when leading questions should be permitted. III. DIRECT EXAMINATION A. Keep focus on the witness. B. Accredit the witness, set the scene and roll the action. C. Who, what, when, where, why and how, tell us, describe, explain, what happened next… 1 2 DIRECT EXAMINATIONS D. Avoid yes/no questions – let the witness speak fully. Use open questions. E. Use headnotes – Let’s talk about the day you… F. Employ simplicity and ruthlessly eliminate anything that unnecessarily complicates the presentation of the facts. G. Avoid talking like a lawyer. H. The fact-finder needs to know the elements of the cause of action and needs to hear evidence that supports the allegations. I. The fact-finder often wants to know the motives behind a particular transaction; eliciting this information makes the direct case compelling and interesting. J. Counsel is given the opportunity to have the witness explain or minimize the impact of a missing part of the narrative. Counsel, in anticipation of the counter case, may want to elicit testimony to mitigate or minimize its impact. Counsel should try to confront and diffuse weaknesses by minimizing the problem, explaining the problem away, or challenging the credibility of the witnesses supporting that weakness. K. The most common form of the structure of direct is chronological. Another approach is to break the testimony down by topic and then use chronology within each topic. L. Adjust the pace. Slow down when going over important point and don’t neglect to pause after making a point to emphasize it. IV. DIRECT TESTIMONY BY DECLARATION A. The Court may enter a pre-trial order requiring that direct testimony be presented by declarations in lieu of direct oral evidence. This is an accepted and encouraged technique for shortening bench trials. See In re Generes, 69 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Adair, 965 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1992). B. Local Rule 7016-1 – Contents of Joint Pretrial Statement 1. Must contain a list of each party’s trial witness and a summary of the substance of witness’s’ testimony. 2. Must identify those witnesses whose direct testimony will be presented by declaration or deposition testimony. 3. No witness will be permitted to testify other than in person absent prior Court permission. 4. The Pretrial Statement must contain a copy of any witness declaration a intends to introduce at trial. 5. Unless the Court orders otherwise, no witness may provide testimony via a declaration unless the witness appears in person at trial and is subject to cross-examination. C. See Attachment 2 to this outline which lists specific items related to declarations found in the Arizona Judge’s Procedures on the District of Arizona Bankruptcy Court website. 2 3 DIRECT EXAMINATIONS V. TRIAL OBJECTIONS A. Sole purpose is to exclude problematic evidence B. To exclude improper evidence. C. To make record on appeal. D. To prevent unfair treatment and unfair tactics. E. What to object to: 1. Attorney questions. 2. Witness testimony. 3. Introduction and use of evidence. 4. An attorney’s behavior. 5. Conduct of the Judge. F. Types of objections: 1. Relevance. 2. Speculation. 3. Hearsay. 4. Leading questions. 5. Lack of foundation. 6. Argumentative. 7. Compound question. G. Get a ruling on the objection. VI. LEADING QUESTIONS A. FRE 611(c) provides that leading questions should not be used on direct examination of a witness, except as may be necessary to develop his testimony, or where a hostile witness is called to testify. B. Test: whether the question suggests the answer desired by the examiner. C. A question may be leading because of its form (“Didn’t he…”), its detail, or be made suggestive by reason of the examiner’s emphasis on certain words, tone, or non-verbal conduct. VII. LACK OF FOUNDATION A. Opposing counsel may object that the evidence presented fails to support introduction of the evidence being offered. Use this objection for: 1. Competency of a lay witness. FRE 601. 2. Qualifications of an expert witness. FRE 702. 3. Intro of opinion testimony. FRE 701-705. 4. Personal knowledge. FRE 602. 5. Unavailability in connection with hearsay exception. FRE 804(a). 6. Satisfaction of the requirements of the hearsay exception. FRE 803-804. 3 4 DIRECT EXAMINATIONS 7. Authentication or identification. FRE 901. 8. Admissibility of evidence other than the original writing. FRE 1004. 9. Existence or waiver of a privilege. Art. V. 10. Relevancy. FRE 401. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Exhibits amplify, but do not replace, witness testimony and engage the fact finder. B. Mark the exhibit. C. Show it to opposing counsel. D. Show it to the witness. E. Lay the foundation. F. Offer then into evidence. IX. WITNESS PREPARATION A. Discuss the role of the witness and effective courtroom behavior. B. Have the witness give an initial recitation of the facts in narration form. C. Review the factual context into which the witness’s observations or opinions will fit. D. Review with the witness past depositions, answers to interrogatories, all documentary or demonstrative evidence, and all other material that may be referred to in trial. E. Discuss the applicability of law to the events in issue. F. Suggest choice of words that might be employed to make the witness’s meaning clear. G. Loosely rehearse testimony - practice direct examination and cross-examination. 4 5 DIRECT EXAMINATIONS BANKRUPTCY COURT, DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JUDGES’ PROCEDURES – March 2019 JUDGE BALLINGER: USE OF DECLARATIONS -- Unless otherwise ordered, the direct testimony of any expert witness shall be by written declaration and the witness shall appear in person at the hearing and shall be subject to cross examination. JUDGE MARTIN: USE OF DECLARATIONS AND AFFIDAVITS -- Unless otherwise ordered, the Court will not accept affidavits or declarations as trial evidence over the objection of an opposing party. Prior to the trial, the parties shall stipulate which, if any, declarations or affidavits may be received into evidence without qualification, which may be received in evidence, provided the witness is available at the hearing for cross examination and which witnesses must testify on direct examination. Notwithstanding the parties' agreement, the Court may require any witness' testimony to be provided by direct examination. JUDGE NIELSEN: USE OF DECLARATIONS AND AFFIDAVITS -- Unless otherwise ordered, the Court will not accept affidavits or declarations as trial evidence over the objection of an opposing party. Prior to the trial, the parties shall stipulate which, if any, declarations or affidavits may be received into evidence without qualification, which may be received in evidence, provided the witness is available at the hearing for cross examination and which witnesses must testify on direct examination. Notwithstanding the parties' agreement, the Court may require any witness' testimony to be provided by direct examination. JUDGE WANSLEE: AFFIDAVITS OR DECLARATIONS GENERALLY -- Unless otherwise ordered, the Court will not accept affidavits or declarations as evidence over the objection of an opposing party. Prior to the hearing/trial, the parties shall stipulate which, if any, declarations or affidavits may be received into evidence without qualification, which may be received in evidence, provided the witness is available at the hearing for cross examination, and which witnesses must testify on direct examination.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Best Evidence Rule--Oral Proof of Contents of Writings
    St. John's Law Review Volume 5 Number 2 Volume 5, May 1931, Number 2 Article 8 Best Evidence Rule--Oral Proof of Contents of Writings Thomas M. McDade Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENT ing certain modes of procedure, in federal cases, it is submitted that there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment that forbids a state from keeping its rules of procedure and evidence abreast of the most enlightened views of modern jurisprudence. C. JOSEPHa DANAHY. BEST EVIDENCE RULE-ORAL PROOF OF CONTENTS OF WRITINGS. It is common learning in the law of evidence that a writing or document is the best evidence of what it contains. "Indeed the term 'best evidence' has been described as a convenient short de- scription of the rule as to proving the contents of a writing." I Therefore, generally, oral testimony will not be admitted to prove what was contained in a writing; the document itself must be produced and offered in evidence.2 The reasons for this rule are founded on the uncertainty of oral testimony based on recollec- tion, and the inability to reproduce properly such characteristics as form, handwriting and physical appearance. 3 But, like most laws of a pseudo-science, this general rule has several exceptions, and it is with one of these exceptions that we are concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.08 “Open Door” Evidence (1) a Party
    4.08 “Open Door” Evidence (1) A party may “open the door” to the introduction by an opposing party of evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible when in the presentation of argument, cross-examination of a witness, or other presentation of evidence the party has given an incomplete and misleading impression on an issue. (2) A trial court must exercise its discretion to decide whether a party has “opened the door” to otherwise inadmissible evidence. In so doing, the trial court should consider whether, and to what extent, the evidence or argument claimed to “open the door” is incomplete and misleading and what, if any, otherwise inadmissible evidence is reasonably necessary to explain, clarify, or otherwise correct an incomplete and misleading impression. (3) To assure the proper exercise of the court’s discretion and avoid the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence, the recommended practice is for a party to apply to the trial court for a ruling on whether the door has been opened before proceeding forward, and the court should so advise the parties before taking evidence. Note Subdivisions (1) and (2) recite the long-settled “open door” principle in New York, as primarily explained in People v Melendez (55 NY2d 445 [1982]); People v Rojas (97 NY2d 32, 34 [2001]); People v Massie (2 NY3d 179 [2004]); and People v Reid (19 NY3d 382 [2012]). Melendez dealt with the issue of whether the defense had opened the door to permit the prosecutor to explore an aspect of the investigation that would not otherwise have been admissible. The Court began by noting that, when an “opposing party ‘opens the door’ on cross-examination to matters not touched upon during the direct examination, a party has the right on redirect to explain, clarify and fully elicit [the] question only partially examined on cross-examination.” (Melendez at 451 1 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) Argument to the jury or other presentation of evidence also may open the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basic Elements of Direct Examination
    The basic elements of direct examination * By: F. Dennis Saylor IV and Daniel I. Small ) February 24, 2017 In theory, at least, an effective direct examination should be one of the easiest things to accomplish in the courtroom. The witness is almost always friendly; in fact, it’s often your own client. The testimony is almost always entirely predictable. And the goal is usually pretty straightforward: telling your side of the story. Nonetheless, too many direct examinations are neither as clear nor as compelling as they ought to be. Maybe that’s because too many lawyers view direct as a simple, almost mechanical, task: Just put your witness on the stand and press “play.” But a truly effective direct examination cannot be created on the fly; it requires careful organization and planning. Moreover, it requires discipline — in particular, the discipline to ask questions carefully, without leading and without excess “noise.” In our upcoming columns, we will talk about different parts of the challenge of effective direct examination. But let’s begin at the beginning. There are six basic elements of an effective direct examination: (1) introducing the witness, (2) setting the stage, (3) telling the story, (4) showing the evidence, (5) defusing problems and (6) concluding effectively. 1. Introducing the witness Most lawyers ask a handful of questions up front to introduce and “humanize” the witness. A few questions about a witness’s background (such as residence, occupation, family or education) are normally permitted, even if technically they aren’t always entirely relevant. But be careful not to overdo this.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 23 Issue 2 Article 4 Fall 1995 Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination Charles W. Ehrhardt Florida State University College of Law Stephanie J. Young Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Evidence Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles W. Ehrhardt & Stephanie J. Young, Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination, 23 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 401 (1995) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol23/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. USING LEADING QUESTIONS DURING DIRECT EXAMINATION CHARLES W. EHRHARDT* AND STEPHANIE J. YOUNG"* I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 401 II. BEFORE ADOPTION OF FLORIDA'S EVIDENCE CODE ......... 402 A. An Exception for Leading Questions on Direct Examination ................................................ 402 B. Voucher Rule Barred Impeaching a Party'sOwn Witness ....................................................... 404 III. ADOPTION OF FLORIDA'S EVIDENCE CODE ................... 405 A. Section 90.608: Impeaching an Adverse Witness... 405 B. Section 90.612(3): Use of Leading Questions ....... 406 C. 1990 Amendment to Section 90.608 ................... 408 D. Evidence Code Amendments Make Rule Unnecessary................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Draft Policy Recommendation on Expert Testimony
    NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FORENSIC SCIENCE PRESENTATION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Experts should be asked to identify and explain the theoretical and factual basis for any conclusion and the reasoning on which the conclusion is based — and any limitations of their conclusions. 2. Experts should present testimony in a manner that accurately and fairly conveys the significance of their conclusions, avoiding unexplained or undefined technical terms or words of art. 3. Experts should remain neutral, and attorneys should respect this neutrality. 4. Experts should not testify beyond their expertise and should also appreciate the difference between testimony that the witness may give as an expert and testimony that the same witness may give as a lay/fact witness.1 5. Experts should not testify on direct or redirect examination concerning case-specific conclusions not contained in the report(s)/documentation submitted in discovery — unless in fair response to issues raised on cross-examination. If an expert changes his or her opinion, a supplementary report should be submitted except where the change is occasioned by new information, presented during testimony and not previously available to the witness. 1 The same witness may provide testimony as both an expert or a lay witness. The two roles need to be distinguished. The Federal Rules do “not distinguish between expert and lay witnesses, but rather between expert and lay testimony. Certainly it is possible for the same witness to provide both lay and expert testimony in a single case.” FED. R. EVID. 701 advisory committee’s note (2000). 1 6. Experts should not testify concerning conclusions that are beyond the limits of a laboratory’s testing protocols.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Evidence Rule Chapter
    Evidence: Best Evidence Rule Colin Miller CALI eLangdell® Press 2012 Notices This is the first version of the first edition of this chapter. It was updated March 21, 2012. Check elangdell.cali.org for the latest edition/version and revision history. This work by Colin Miller is licensed and published by CALI eLangdell Press under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. CALI and CALI eLangdell Press reserve under copyright all rights not expressly granted by this Creative Commons license. CALI and CALI eLangdell Press do not assert copyright in US Government works or other public domain material included herein. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available through [email protected]. In brief, the terms of that license are that you may copy, distribute, and display this work, or make derivative works, so long as you give CALI eLangdell Press and the author credit; you do not use this work for commercial purposes; and you distribute any works derived from this one under the same licensing terms as this. Suggested attribution format for original work: Colin Miller, Evidence: Best Evidence Rule, Published by CALI eLangdell Press. Available under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 License. CALI® and eLangdell® are United States federally registered trademarks owned by the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction. The cover art design is a copyrighted work of CALI, all rights reserved. The CALI graphical logo is a trademark and may not be used without permission. Should you create derivative works based on the text of this book or other Creative Commons materials therein, you may not use this book’s cover art and the aforementioned logos, or any derivative thereof, to imply endorsement or otherwise without written permission from CALI.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Evidentiary Foundations Randolph N
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Books 1993 New York Evidentiary Foundations Randolph N. Jonakait H. Baer E. S. Jones E. Imwinkelried Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_books Part of the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Jonakait, Randolph N.; Baer, H.; Jones, E. S.; and Imwinkelried, E., "New York Evidentiary Foundations" (1993). Books. Book 4. http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_books/4 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Books by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. New York .Evidentiary Foundations RANDOLPH N. JONAKAIT HAROLD BAER, JR. E. STEWART JONES, JR. EDWARD J. IMWINKELRIED THE MICHIE COMPANY Law Publishers CHARLOTIESVILLE, Vlli:GINIA CoPYRIGHT ~ 1H93 BY THE MICHIE COMI'ANY Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 93-77731 ISBN: 1-55834-058-0 All rights reserved. lllllllllllllllllllllllllm IIIII SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents . v Chapter 1. Introduction . 1 Chapter 2. Related Procedures .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... 11 Chapter 3. The Competency ofWitnesses .......................... 25 Chapter 4. Authentication . 45 Chapter 5. Limitations on Credibility Evidence . 99 Chapter 6. Limitations on Evidence That Is Relevant to the Merits of the Case . 129 Chapter 7. Privileges and Similar Doctrines . 155 Chapter 8. The Best Evidence Rule . 199 Chapter 9. Opinion Evidence ......................................... 225 Chapter 10. The Hearsay Rule, Its Exemptions, and Its Excep- tions ......................................................... 241 Chapter 11. Substitutes for Evidence . .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ..... ... .. 315 Index ......................................................................... 329 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary Table of Contents 111 Chapter 1. Introduction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 · A. Introduction . 1 B. Laying a Foundation - In General . 2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Trial Witnesses, Un-Lead the Questions
    Trial Witnesses, Un-Lead the Questions Prepared by: Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm Persuasion Strategies - a service of Holland & Hart LLP Published on www.lorman.com - May 2019 Trial Witnesses - Un-Lead the Questions, ©2019 Lorman Education Services. All Rights Reserved. Trial Witnesses, Un-Lead the Questions Written by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm When testifying, there are some situations where a “less is more” rule applies. In a deposition, for example, you don’t want to aid the other side, and will often prefer conciseness. However, when undergoing cross-examination before a jury in trial, less isn’t more…it is less. That is, if you limit yourself to simple “yes” answers, then you have less control (with your adversary choosing all the words) less power (since you’re just confirming the facts that opposing counsel has selected), and less overall usefulness to the jury (since you aren’t saying much). In a courtroom cross-examination, there is a need to find ways to talk more so that you appear to be credible and, in some ways at least, so you function as a teacher for your jury. So, how do you do that if all opposing counsel is doing is giving you statements that are turned into questions by adding, “Wouldn’t you agree…” at the start, or, “Right?” at the end? What you need to do is mentally convert the language of those questions so they’re no longer leading questions. They may be asking you, “You never tested the product with actual consumers, did you?” but the question you want to answer is more like, “What did you do to test the product?” The broader version is better for ensuring that you aren’t just a rubber-stamp for your adversary’s selective claims, but instead get to share your side of the story.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Examination
    Direct Examination dvocates begin the presentation of evidence by calling witnesses. The questions they ask of the witnesses they call are direct examination. A Direct examination of a witness should be the easiest part of an arbitration hearing. You have a friendly witness on the stand who generally wants to be helpful to your case. All you need do is ask the witness some simple questions and let them tell the arbitrator their story. Nothing could be easier, right? And nothing could be more perilous. Unlike cross-examination, you do not have complete control over the witness. Rather than stating facts and merely having the witness agree or disagree with those facts, as on cross, during direct it is the witness who narrates the facts. A misstatement, momentary lapse of memory or even an inappropriate emotional response and your case has suddenly become that much more difficult. Like any skill, questioning a witness is something that can be improved with practice and study. Practice not only by conducting direct examinations during your assigned arbitration hearings but also by offering to assist your fellow advocates as they prepare witnesses for arbitration. Help them conduct mock examinations of the witnesses that will testify during their assigned arbitrations. In addition, I recommend watching other advocates in action. If they’re better than you are, you’ll discover new skills or techniques you can apply to your cases. If they’re worse than you are, you’ll be reminded about mistakes that you shouldn’t repeat. Regardless of what happens, you’re almost guaranteed to learn something.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Rules of Evidence
    OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope of rules: applicability; privileges; exceptions 102 Purpose and construction; supplementary principles 103 Rulings on evidence 104 Preliminary questions 105 Limited admissibility 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements Article II JUDICIAL NOTICE 201 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts Article III PRESUMPTIONS 301 Presumptions in general in civil actions and proceedings 302 [Reserved] Article IV RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS 401 Definition of “relevant evidence” 402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible 403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay 404 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes 405 Methods of proving character 406 Habit; routine practice 407 Subsequent remedial measures 408 Compromise and offers to compromise 409 Payment of medical and similar expenses 410 Inadmissibility of pleas, offers of pleas, and related statements 411 Liability insurance Article V PRIVILEGES 501 General rule Article VI WITNESS 601 General rule of competency 602 Lack of personal knowledge 603 Oath or affirmation Rule 604 Interpreters 605 Competency of judge as witness 606 Competency of juror as witness 607 Impeachment 608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness 609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime 610 Religious beliefs or opinions 611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation 612 Writing used to refresh memory 613 Impeachment by self-contradiction
    [Show full text]
  • Leading Questions: a Categorization System Scott and Steward
    Leading Questions: A Categorization System Scott and Steward LEADING QUESTIONS: A CATEGORIZATION SYSTEM CLIFFORD D. SCOTT, University of Arkansas—Fort Smith MICHELLE D. STEWARD, Wake Forest University Marketing researchers agree that questionnaire design and specifically, leading questions, can be a significant contributor to total error in survey research. In challenges to research, leading questions are often a central issue. Interestingly, marketing literature on leading questions is mostly circular and lacking in a framework to identify and a process to remedy leading questions. This article focuses on: (a.) current treatment of leading questions and pitfalls of existing definitions; (b.) a synthesis of types of leading questions grounded in semiotics literature which leads to; (c.) a categorization of dimensions in which questions can be assessed to identify and remedy any leading nature of the question; and (d.) a new definition of a leading question. The value of the categorization lies in providing a framework allowing marketing researchers to better comprehend, diagnose and treat leading questions. INTRODUCTION oracle of truth, is subject to creating research to suit the interests of well-heeled contributors A leading question, or a question that “gives the (Goldberg, 2002; Crossen, 1994; Soley, 1995). respondent a strong cue or expectation as to People are deeply skeptical of reported research how to answer,” have long been recognized as a results because they fear the researchers are not significant source of error in survey research asking the right questions and may be (Burns & Bush, 2010, p. 309). Surveys are manipulating the wording of questions to get designed to understand the truth about the the responses they want (Mann & Dionne, views and the behaviors of people who can 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • The Perils of Calling Your Opponent As a Witness in Your Case
    OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVES The Perils Of Calling Your Opponent As A Witness In Your Case YEARS AGO, I WATCHED A PLAINTIFF’S ing on direct did not voluntarily take the stand and, attorney fail miserably in his attempts to tell his more importantly, did not have the opportunity prior to client’s story to a jury through his very first wit- examination by the opposing counsel to fully tell his or ness – one of the named her story. Many judges under these circumstances will Michael A. Stick defendants. At a recess, a allow an adverse witness greater freedom to deviate friend said to me: “This from the standard “yes or no” answers of cross exami- just proves that you are a nation and to explain their answers. This results in fool if you try to put on your case in chief through a direct examination that is often lengthier, choppier, an adverse witness.” As self-evident as my friend’s less predictable, and ultimately less compelling than a advice might seem, it is often ignored. tight, clean cross examination of the same witness in Except under unique circumstances, examining an your opponent’s case. The time to examine an unpre- adverse witness on direct during your case in chief dictable and hostile witness is during cross examina- for any extended period of time is usually a mistake. tion and not on direct during your case in chief. To begin with, using an adverse witness as your To make matters worse, juries in particular might spokesperson is simply not a compelling way to offer sympathize more with an adverse witness being exam- your evidence at trial.
    [Show full text]