Hacker News Reader

Comment by FpUser | Hacker News Reader

>"The witness who “doesn’t remember” or “isn’t sure” about dates, times, distances, or amounts."

That would be me. I honestly can't ever remember any date / phone number / time / etc without writing it down. FFS I can't even recall license plate of my car.

>"Q. How far apart were your truck and Mrs. Agan’s car apart the accident?

A. I don’t know.

... and it goes on and on"

Yes I do not remember the distance. I can tell that it is probably between 5 and 15 feet. There is no fucking evasion here. Learn to ask correct question instead.

>"Effective exhaustion is the use of simple follow-up questions like the following after each answer:

...

"Tell me more"

... "

I am sorry Mr. Lawyer. I am not here to create stories possibly endangering sides without merit. Ask fucking particular questions.

View on HN

Q. Okay, then could they have been more than 25 feet apart, say the length of this room?

A. Is this room 25 feet long?

Don't agree to something you have not verified.

Q. If someone showed you photos of the scene would that possibly allow you recollect something about seeing Mr. Smith’s car? (asking if reviewing a document might change recollection)

A. It might implant a false impression that I remember more than I do.

Alternatively,

A. I very much doubt it, but if you think there are pictures that will, show them to me.

If a lawyer took that bait, she might be setting herself up for an "if the glove doesn't fit" moment, where the witness denies that any evidence presented makes a difference to her recall.

The questions are intentionally leading to the conclusion the lawyer wants a jury to reach. It’s intended to be hostile. If you react angrily, that serves the lawyer’s purpose.

If I calmly tell lawyer to go back to high school and learn haw to ask questions that could be answered without the doubt whose purpose does it serve?

Lawyer’s. Because it’s perceived as juvenile.

Why would I care what it's being perceived like?

Because the deposition, when played for a jury in a civil suit, may cause them to find against you or the party you align with.

"...party you align with." That is a big assumption. I prefer not to align. If for whatever reason I am aligning with party I will of course take that into account.

Because mostly the answers don't matter and the only thing that does matter is the fact finder's opinion of the parties.

So your are telling me that we only have kangaroo courts? Well I sort of suspected it. thanks for confirming.

And lawyers wonder why they are considered lowerer than a subterranean snake's belly when they openly waste vast amounts of people's time to manipulatively build a sophistic self serving narrative....

It doesn't matter why you're doing it. Whether you're deliberately evasive or not, you're not stating facts that answer the question. The purpose of a deposition is to develop a record about the facts the witness can state in testimony. It's a correct question because it demands a specific factual answer.

> I am not here to create stories

Exactly, which is why your response to "tell me more" is to say there is no more to tell. The lawyer needs to know you're on the same page about not creating stories. That way if "more" suddenly comes up in trial, the judge or jury can fairly weigh why you are all of a sudden willing to create stories at trial.

>"you're not stating facts that answer the question"

Not my problem. I am not here do the guesswork and tell semi-facts that could be further twisted to advance someone's goal. Learn to ask proper questions. That is one of the things you get paid for.

I'm curious what you think a better question would be, given that in the example, the witness could in fact have said from the outset "I didn't measure, but at least 5 feet, say the distance between you and me, and closer than about 15 feet; say from the wall to the end of the table."

What better question than the one that directly asks for specific the information that's needed?

In this particular distance situation it is simple - tell me approximate distance in familiar way (this is to use size of the room as an example as the person may not actually grok feet) and I will answer accordingly. Do not ask whole bunch of questions instead and call the answers evasive as that lawyer has.

Keep in mind the article is about dealing with evasion. You seem to be assuming that "I don't know" is being seen as evasive, but it's really being assumed because that's what the article is about.

Also, depositions are by law conducted the same way testimony at a trial would be, so the lawyer can't herself testify–asking a whole lot of questions is mandatory.

Are you saying you think the lawyer should say "The distance from you to me is about five feet. The distance to the wall is about fifteen feet. The distance to that building you see through the window is about eighty feet. How far away would you say <thing> was?" Because that seems unnecessary when an appropriate answer would be "I don't know how many feet, but about the distance to that wall."

>" You seem to be assuming that "I don't know" is being seen as evasive,"

I indeed assumed that from reading the type and style of questions in the article. I do see you point though.

"Tell me more"

"Can I just tell you anything I like, or is there something in particular that you'd like me to tell you?"

That's part of his boxing-in strategy, I think. As a juror, I think I'd be unimpressed by an examiner asking such an open non-question. As a witness, it would make me angry (which someone up-thread has noted would mean I've lost that hand).

Also, if I'm not sure, then I'm not going to testify under oath that I am sure. Asking me repeatedly is badgering, and it won't change my answer.

No, this is a shrewd defense against a witness saying in court "but the opposing lawyer didn't let me speak and only told me to answer their questions, that's why it's not in the deposition".

Hmm, I looked up "deposition".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(law)#Australia,_En...

As I was beginning to suspect, I didn't understand what a deposition is; we don't have it here. Witnesses make a statement, but they can't be questioned by the opposition pre-trial.

"That's part of his boxing-in strategy, I think. As a juror, I think I'd be unimpressed by an examiner asking such an open non-question"

For cross-examination (IE in the presence of a jury), you might ask it differently.

For deposition, you wouldn't.

Deposition is entered into evidence, but when it comes to a jury hearing them, they are usually excerpts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com