learn exact steps on how to do impeachment from depo. Or alternatively, fuck up impeachment from depo at trial, lose the case, then learn how to ask better depo questions

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45576252)

If I want to address 4 specific points, then it doens't matter if the witness veers off-topic. I can follow him, and then come back to the *POINT* I wanted to address, instead feeling like I have to ask questions in a certain order.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580945)

He needs to get wording down, otherwise the witness can be a smart-ass and say, "I'm not sure what you mean by that question"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580969)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45579871)

You want it set up so you get to the point you want and it doesnt matter what he says. LITERALLY write it out. No short cuts on big cases--defense wont let you.

Remember also you HAVE to get them to answer each quesiton. They HAVE to answer. Go back until they give you an answer that is responsive. If they are fighting and wont agree to a damn thing, just plough through even with their nos. They'll sound unreasonable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45579939)

So the first one is "you gave a deposition in this case on [date]?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45579997)

Way too vague. WTF does "all the time" mean? The witness is going to say "all the time?" and then you'll engage in a subthread wasteland trying to clarify what you meant.

All of these need to be tightened up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580005)

Remember I want to get in and out and not fight him on the medicine. If he argues that they dont have desats all the time then that's hugely helpful for me for other reasons. If he argues that he doesnt understand the question that's in straightofard language then it doesnt hurt me and it might help me.

But in principle your point is good.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580013)

This is just appalling, unless you're the defense counsel.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580008)

How would you phrase? Seriously.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580016)

But thanks for the input. In other settings youd be absolutely right (and I wouldnt do it in other cases)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580038)

Its in opening from both sides and all plaintiff's experts have testified that if its "suspected" you have to rule it out.

Still ...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580055)

and maybe change vigilance to look out for while I'm at it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580067)

"you didn't suspect infection, correct?"

"and you didnt' order follow up testing to rule infection in or out, correct?"

End point

Same issue with the responses but he's going to do that no matter what.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580124)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580928)

So that’s a yes? Or so that’s a no? If they fuck around too much and refuse to answer it’s not a good look for them if you’ve planned it out. Take it as a no, tell them that’s how you are taking it, and move to next question based on their response as a no.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45582193)

I am not a lawyer and I am better than you at your job.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45582859)

But this is amusing. Tell me more about “one question too many” dude.

That “one question too many” is gonna get asked on redirect, you know. And then your credibility as truth talker goes down the tubes for not having been perceived as forthright with the jury. That’s why the cliche doesn’t work. But you don’t know that and why should you because you haven’t had 20 years experience as a lawyer but you don’t know what you don’t know and lol at how that doesn’t stop you from calling me names.

You also have to know the law in question and what’s trying to be shown. I’m not going to bother explaining it. But if person x didn’t do y, you can just ASK them that. The point is to establish the unreasonableness of the thinking behind the action or inaction in a specific context. Was it *reasonable* to have made the decision that was made. Was it professionally reasonable to have omitted a differential from consideration. And people are always going to argue that what they did was reasonable — there’s no getting around that. In cross, a counter to that is made in the questions themselves.

And you can’t impeach with literature that way. They are going to deny that the article is reliable for starters, regardless of “stipulation”, so don’t ask them. You just establish their belief and actions that were contrary to the article, and that’s about all you can do with that.

It’s hilarious and completely unsurprising that you would make the poast above. Tell me more, oh guru of everything.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45583281)

1. Make a list of concessions you're looking for, or the material from them you're going to use.

2. Write lines of questioning for each.

3. Gameplan every answer they could give to any question, through your entire line of questioning, and how you'll use it / control the witness. Goes without saying almost everything should be leading and closed-ended.

4. Know their depositions thoroughly so you can impeach quickly and efficiently.

5. Once you can do this comfortably and easily, start using it to make them look stupid and unreasonable along the way, so they give you your concessions and also make your jury hate them by the end of it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45579267)

Asking open ended questions means you either don't have a real plan, or they said something you didn't plan for; either is failure to prepare. Plan out even the minute wording of your questions so they don't have wiggle room. It sounds like you're not quick on your feet, so you need to prep heavily to overcome that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45579765)

If you do this enough, you will probably quickly reach a point where you don't need to overprep like this, but until then, do this. It'll become muscle memory.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45579791)

Be brief

Use plain words

Ask only leading questions

Be prepared

Listen

Don’t get into a quarrel

Avoid repetition

Disallow witness explanations

Limit questioning

Save the main point for the summation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBP2if0l-a8

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580000)

However, the women of your jury will DEFINITELY be keyed in to what you're packing if you make subtle movements to re-=adjust when you stand up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580931)

That usually comes from two issues - overly complex questions or questions that allow a witness to explain themselves.

If you ask simple questions and make sure they're not open ended, you are 90% there.

I have no idea how civil litigators fail at cross. If you have a deposition it becomes far easier to cross examine someone. Try crossing a witness who you barely have any idea what they will say and are critical to your clients freedom

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580940)

they key is to ask a question so simple that once they start with the, "well, it depends. . ." then even a 5 year old will roll their eyes at whatever the fuck they're saying.

"Mr. Faggot, according to the Medical Board of Faggots, for which you've said is a reliable and credible medical resource, a patient should not develop a stage 4 pressure ulcer if his skin is inspected every day and he's rotated every 2 hours?"

Mr. Faggot: "well, not necessarily, because you see. . . ."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580957)

I’m depo you have to break those rambling answers apart and get a concession on each point, if only so when you follow impeachment rules at trial you don’t get jammed up.

Boy did I fumble that one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45583418)

- "Mr. Faggot, you've said right here that the Medical Board of Faggots is a credible medical body, correct?"

- "And the Medical Board of Faggots state in xyz resource that the standard for patient care is daily skin inspection, and rotation every two hours, correct?"

- "And they further state that if this standard of care is met, the patient shouldn't develop ulcers, correct?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580980)

NEVER NEVER NEVER go back and forht with the witness. The second you do is the second you look like a querlous faggot who can't control the room.

If the witness starts rambling in response to your question, just walk away from them and go back to your table and pretend to shuffle around some papers. When they stop talking walk back up to them/the podium and say,

"That was not the question I asked you, I'll repeat my question..."

When you do that you send a message that you aren't going to stop the witness, but you are going to get the answer to your question.

The jury won't have any patience to hear another rambling response and they also recognize that you are in control of what you are asking and not just looking to score "GOTCHA" points.

Plus, the judge will be annoyed if hte witness starts up with that rambling shit again after being asked a very simple YES/NO question.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45580941)

And then you went to the car, didn't you?

And then you got in, right?

It was hot inside wasn't it?

vs.

Then you went to the car.

And you got in.

It was hot. You started sweating.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5246131&forum_id=2#45581007)