<h2>CHAPTER IX</h2>
<h3>GOLDEN RULES FOR THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES</h3>
<p>David Paul Brown, a member of the Philadelphia
Bar, has condensed his experiences into eighteen paragraphs
which he has entitled, "Golden Rules for the
Examination of Witnesses."</p>
<p>Although I am of the opinion that it is impossible to
embody in any set of rules the art of examination of witnesses,
yet the Golden Rules of Brown contain so many
useful and valuable suggestions concerning the art, that
it is well to reprint them here for the benefit of the student.</p>
<p class="p2"><i>Golden Rules for the Examination of Witnesses</i></p>
<p>First, as to your own witnesses.</p>
<p>I. If they are bold, and may injure your cause by pertness
or forwardness, observe a gravity and ceremony of
manner toward them which may be calculated to repress
their assurance.</p>
<p>II. If they are alarmed or diffident, and their thoughts
are evidently scattered, commence your examination
with matters of a familiar character, remotely connected
with the subject of their alarm, or the matter in issue; as,<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</SPAN></span>
for instance,—Where do you live? Do you know the
parties? How long have you known them? etc. And
when you have restored them to their composure, and
the mind has regained its equilibrium, proceed to the
more essential features of the case, being careful to be
mild and distinct in your approaches, lest you may again
trouble the fountain from which you are to drink.</p>
<p>III. If the evidence of your own witnesses be unfavorable
to you (which should always be carefully guarded
against), exhibit no want of composure; for there are
many minds that form opinions of the nature or character
of testimony chiefly from the effect which it may
appear to produce upon the counsel.</p>
<p>IV. If you perceive that the <i>mind</i> of the witness is
imbued with prejudices against your client, hope but
little from such a quarter—unless there be some facts
which are essential to your client's protection, and which
that witness alone can prove, either do not call him, or
get rid of him as soon as possible. If the opposite counsel
perceive the bias to which I have referred, he may
employ it to your ruin. In judicial inquiries, of all possible
evils, the worst and the least to be resisted is an
enemy in the disguise of a friend. You cannot impeach
him; you cannot cross-examine him; you cannot disarm
him; you cannot indirectly, even, assail him; and
if you exercise the only privilege that is left to you, and
call other witnesses for the purposes of explanation, you
must bear in mind that, instead of carrying the war into<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</SPAN></span>
the enemy's country, the struggle is still between sections
of your own forces, and in the very heart, perhaps, of your
own camp. Avoid this, by all means.</p>
<p>V. Never call a witness whom your adversary will be
compelled to call. This will afford you the privilege of
cross-examination,—take from your opponent the same
privilege it thus gives to you,—and, in addition thereto,
not only render everything unfavorable said by the witness
doubly operative against the party calling him, but
also deprive that party of the power of counteracting the
effect of the testimony.</p>
<p>VI. Never ask a question without an object, nor
without being able to connect that object with the case,
if objected to as irrelevant.</p>
<p>VII. Be careful not to put your question in such a
<i>shape</i> that, if opposed for informality, you cannot sustain
it, or, at all events, produce strong reason in its support.
Frequent failures in the discussions of points of evidence
enfeeble your strength in the estimation of the jury, and
greatly impair your hopes in the final result.</p>
<p>VIII. Never object to a question from your adversary
without being able and disposed to enforce the objection.
Nothing is so monstrous as to be constantly making
and withdrawing objections; it either indicates a want
of correct perception <i>in making them</i>, or a deficiency of
real or of moral courage in <i>not making them good</i>.</p>
<p>IX. Speak to your witness clearly and distinctly, as if
you were awake and engaged in a matter of interest,<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</SPAN></span>
and make <i>him</i> also speak distinctly and to your question.
How can it be supposed that the court and jury will be
inclined to listen, when the only struggle seems to be
whether the counsel or the witness shall first go to sleep?</p>
<p>X. Modulate your voice as circumstances may direct,
"Inspire the fearful and repress the bold."</p>
<p>XI. Never begin before you are <i>ready</i>, and always
finish when you have <i>done</i>. In other words, do not question
for question's sake, but for an <i>answer</i>.</p>
<p class="p2"><i>Cross-examination</i></p>
<p>I. Except in indifferent matters, never take your eye
from that of the witness; this is a channel of communication
from mind to mind, the loss of which nothing can
compensate.</p>
<div class="poetryblock">
"Truth, falsehood, hatred, anger, scorn, despair,<br/>
And all the passions—all the soul—is there."<br/></div>
<p>II. Be not regardless, either, of the <i>voice</i> of the witness;
next to the eye this is perhaps the best interpreter
of his mind. The very design to screen conscience
from crime—the mental reservation of the witness—is
often manifested in the tone or accent or emphasis of
the voice. For instance, it becoming important to know
that the witness was at the corner of Sixth and Chestnut
streets at a certain time, the question is asked, Were
you at the corner of Sixth and Chestnut streets at six
o'clock? A frank witness would answer, perhaps I<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</SPAN></span>
was near there. But a witness who had been there, desirous
to conceal the fact, and to defeat your object,
speaking to the letter rather than the spirit of the inquiry,
answers, No; although he may have been within
a stone's throw of the place, or at the very place, within
ten minutes of the time. The common answer of such
a witness would be, I was not at the <i>corner at six o'clock</i>.</p>
<p>Emphasis upon both words plainly implies a mental
evasion or equivocation, and gives rise with a skilful
examiner to the question, At what hour were you at the
corner, or at what place were you at six o'clock? And
in nine instances out of ten it will appear, that the witness
was at the place about the time, or at the time
about the place. There is no scope for further illustrations;
but be watchful, I say, of the voice, and the
principle may be easily applied.</p>
<p>III. Be mild with the mild; shrewd with the crafty;
confiding with the honest; merciful to the young,
the frail, or the fearful; rough to the ruffian, and a
thunderbolt to the liar. But in all this, never be unmindful
of your own dignity. Bring to bear all the
powers of your mind, not that <i>you</i> may shine, but that
<i>virtue</i> may triumph, and your <i>cause</i> may prosper.</p>
<p>IV. In a <i>criminal</i>, especially in a <i>capital</i> case, so long
as your cause stands well, ask but few questions; and
be certain never to ask <i>any</i> the answer to which, if
against you, may destroy your client, unless you know
the witness <i>perfectly</i> well, and know that his answer will<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</SPAN></span>
be favorable <i>equally</i> well; or unless you be prepared with
testimony to destroy him, if he play traitor to the truth
and your expectations.</p>
<p>V. An equivocal question is almost as much to be
avoided and condemned as an equivocal answer; and it
always <i>leads</i> to, or <i>excuses</i>, an equivocal answer. Singleness
of purpose, clearly expressed, is the best trait in the
examination of witnesses, whether they be honest or the
reverse. Falsehood is not detected by cunning, but by
the light of truth, or if by cunning, it is the cunning of
the witness, and not of the counsel.</p>
<p>VI. If the witness determine to be witty or refractory
with you, you had better settle that account with him at
<i>first</i>, or its items will increase with the examination.
Let him have an opportunity of satisfying himself either
that he has mistaken <i>your</i> power, or his <i>own</i>. But in
any result, be careful that you do not lose your temper;
anger is always either the precursor or evidence of
assured defeat in every intellectual conflict.</p>
<p>VII. Like a skilful chess-player, in every move, fix
your mind upon the combinations and relations of the
game—partial and temporary success may otherwise
end in total and remediless defeat.</p>
<p>VIII. Never undervalue your adversary, but stand
steadily upon your guard; a random blow may be just
as fatal as though it were directed by the most consummate
skill; the negligence of one often cures, and sometimes
renders effective, the blunders of another.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</SPAN></span></p>
<p>IX. Be respectful to the court and to the jury; kind
to your colleague; civil to your antagonist; but never
sacrifice the slightest principle of duty to an overweening
deference toward <i>either</i>.</p>
<p>In "The Advocate, his Training, Practice, Rights, and
Duties," written by Cox, and published in England about
a half century ago, there is an excellent chapter on cross-examination,
to which the writer is indebted for many
suggestions. Cox closes his chapter with this final
admonition to the students, to whom his book is evidently
addressed:—</p>
<p>"In concluding these remarks on cross-examination,
the rarest, the most useful, and the most difficult to be
acquired of the accomplishments of the advocate, we
would again urge upon your attention the importance
of calm discretion. In addressing a jury you may sometimes
talk without having anything to say, and no harm
will come of it. But in cross-examination every question
that does not advance your cause injures it. If you have
not a definite object to attain, dismiss the witness without
a word. There are no harmless questions here; the
most apparently unimportant may bring destruction or
victory. If the summit of the orator's art has been
rightly defined to consist in knowing when to sit down,
that of an advocate may be described as knowing when
to keep his seat. Very little experience in our courts
will teach you this lesson, for every day will show to your
observant eye instances of self-destruction brought about<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</SPAN></span>
by imprudent cross-examination. Fear not that your
discreet reserve may be mistaken for carelessness or
want of self-reliance. The true motive will soon be
seen and approved. Your critics are lawyers, who know
well the value of discretion in an advocate; and how
indiscretion in cross-examination cannot be compensated
by any amount of ability in other duties. The attorneys
are sure to discover the prudence that governs your
tongue. Even if the wisdom of your abstinence be not
apparent at the moment, it will be recognized in the
result. Your fame may be of slower growth than that
of the talker, but it will be larger and more enduring."</p>
<hr class="chap" />
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</SPAN></span></p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />