Word spinning

I have seen attorneys try to lead a witness without leading the witness according to examination rules. Unexpectant people play along unwittingly, and those who ultimately play along know that something is really wrong with line of questioning going on.

Usually, the attorney asks a few warmup questions to get the witness loose.  Then (s)he begins with "Would you agree that... ?"  No witness should answer yes or no to such a statement.  A witness should always say, "I would say..." and proceed to give her or his own version of what the attorney is referring to.  Sometimes a lawyer will try, "Would you characterize the situation as...?"  Again, the witness should give the answer, "I would characterize the situation as... " and proceed to recount his or her own characterization.

The most damaging kind of leading comes when an attorney phrases a question and asks for a simple yes or no answer.  There are two lines of response to follow if that happens.  The attorney wants to highlight the answer of course and not the context.  The first response should be to say something like, "Yes, I could answer yes or no, but the context is indelibly connected to the answer. "  Then begin with providing the context.  The attorney will probably interrupt the context to demand a yes or no answer.  The second response should be to say, "Because (the event) happened (a certain way), then yes (or no)."  If the attorney moves to strike the comment because it doesn't answer the question, or if the attorney reduces your second answer to a yes or no, then the second line of response is the only one left open - pleading the 5th amendment.

Reducing testimony to yes or no is really not the best way for an attorney to pin down a witness.  Establishing context is important, so an attorney needs to help the witness establish the context.  The jury hearing the testimony is just as likely to think less of the attorney pushing a witness to a fifth amendment answer as it is to think less of the witness.

One other advantage of allowing a witness to speak of characterizations or facts is that the words can be charted according to known linguistic methods of detecting deception.  Exploiting those areas then becomes much more factual and much less dependent on how an opposing attorney wants to cast a case.