Can you learn to cross-examine from a book?

[RSTurboPaul]

Thread number 17b in a continuing series from me, I'm afraid .... but...


Can one learn how to cross-examine (and cross-examine well!) from a book?

I'm aware that Barrister types have years of training and many challenging tests of their ability along the way, therefore it's unlikely to be possible to ever get to that level without that training...

... but can one at least learn the principles?


Can one also learn the critical thinking processes required to put forward an alternative view of information presented in a submission?


I guess the TL;DR is "What books are good to read about cross-examining?" but any input would be very gratefully received!


Thank you muchly for your patience and assistance, kind sirs!

[smn159]

You might be able to learn the mechanics of what to do and when, but you won't be any good at it without a substantial amount of practice I would have thought.

[anonymous-user]

I think Tony Hancock may have published a book many years ago.

As we all tend to learn when growing up, reading things in a book (or magazine) and doing them 'for real' can be two quite different things

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 23 July 17:06

[Countdown]

I assume it's like changing brake pads or carrying out heart surgery.

You could probably learn enough just from reading the books. You might want to get some practice in first before doing it for real.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Probably because telling a consistent set of lies is pretty hard for most people.

[RSTurboPaul]

Well, it appears the answer would seem to be 'No', going from the responses... lol


I think even learning the basics would be beneficial, even if it's not anywhere near the skill of a proper Barrister, but all the above points are duly noted

Thank you for your thoughts, gents!


Perhaps it's for the best - all the books I've seen on Amazon etc. with decent reviews seem to be very costly!

[hairy vx220]

I can understand why you might want to, have a read of "The Secret Barrister" for why you mightnot want to.

[BlackTails]

RSTurboPaul said:

Thread number 17b in a continuing series from me, I'm afraid .... but...


Can one learn how to cross-examine (and cross-examine well!) from a book?

I'm aware that Barrister types have years of training and many challenging tests of their ability along the way, therefore it's unlikely to be possible to ever get to that level without that training...

... but can one at least learn the principles?


Can one also learn the critical thinking processes required to put forward an alternative view of information presented in a submission?


I guess the TL;DR is "What books are good to read about cross-examining?" but any input would be very gratefully received!


Thank you muchly for your patience and assistance, kind sirs!

The answer to the question about cross-examination is no. It’s a skill that I’d liken to something like swimming. You may be able to find a book that will tell you how to do it, but it’s something you get to know how to do through practice. It’s also rather artificial: you have a captive questionee who can be directed to answer your questions under pain of an adverse inference; they can’t ask questions back (other than to clarify the question) and often you will have and be on top of a huge volume of detail contained in documents which the questionee gets dragged around and duffed up with. You go into it with a clear idea of what you want to get out of your questionee, so it’s a process that takes a bit of careful planning. You tend to think carefully about the wording of the questions so as to close off escape routes. You have to listen to the answers and react on the fly, never losing sight of your goal and never looking or sounding surprised or confused. It is also an interaction which takes place for the benefit of an audience: the judge or a jury. You’re not trying to change the questionee’s mind. It really isn’t a skill that is that useful for everyday life: charm, politeness and patience are much more effective.

The ability to present a particular perspective from a set of information is more straightforward. I’m not sure it’s a particularly special or difficult skill to acquire, to be honest.

[LosingGrip]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I've done a few interviews lately. Some I've had admit it straight away. Others have given an account of what's happened (IE other person started the fight) and some have denied they've committed an offence.

Had one recently (can't say too much just in case!) but denied the offence. He was happy with his account.

Showed him the CCTV and his body language changed instantly. Leg shaking, dry mouth, no eye contact.

Stuck to his story though...

I can tend to get an idea of how an interview is going to go when I meet them.

I don't enjoy them though.

[RSTurboPaul]

BlackTails said:

The answer to the question about cross-examination is no. It’s a skill that I’d liken to something like swimming. You may be able to find a book that will tell you how to do it, but it’s something you get to know how to do through practice. It’s also rather artificial: you have a captive questionee who can be directed to answer your questions under pain of an adverse inference; they can’t ask questions back (other than to clarify the question) and often you will have and be on top of a huge volume of detail contained in documents which the questionee gets dragged around and duffed up with. You go into it with a clear idea of what you want to get out of your questionee, so it’s a process that takes a bit of careful planning. You tend to think carefully about the wording of the questions so as to close off escape routes. You have to listen to the answers and react on the fly, never losing sight of your goal and never looking or sounding surprised or confused. It is also an interaction which takes place for the benefit of an audience: the judge or a jury. You’re not trying to change the questionee’s mind. It really isn’t a skill that is that useful for everyday life: charm, politeness and patience are much more effective.

The ability to present a particular perspective from a set of information is more straightforward. I’m not sure it’s a particularly special or difficult skill to acquire, to be honest.

Thanks for the detailed reply - it confirms my thoughts (fears...) about how one needs to be seriously on the ball when undertaking such a task, and that it seems well beyond the realms of a layman who is attempting to represent himself due to lack of funds and no Legal Aid availability.

Your last comment is interesting, though - my thinking has been that asking some questions with a 'framing' that would encourage answers that might support one's evidence / assertions (that are already 'framed' within a written submission to the court) would be about the only way a layman could really get through the process (as the cross-examiner), and your comments seem to suggest that is a good way forward, if I'm understanding it correctly?


I don't know how much weight a Judge gives to answers given by a Litigant in Person under interrogation cross-examination by a Barrister, as compared to written evidence submitted by the LiP and some (simplistic, relatively speaking) questions they ask of the Respondent...

I guess that depends a lot on the judge and how well the Barrister manages to twist the truth or infer things that didn't happen, and (of course) the quality of the evidence presented by each side.


I imagine the legal system would be a lot quicker and easier if things were so simple that could be answered on a motoring forum... lol

[zzrman]

RSTurboPaul said:

Thanks for the detailed reply - it confirms my thoughts (fears...) about how one needs to be seriously on the ball when undertaking such a task, and that it seems well beyond the realms of a layman who is attempting to represent himself due to lack of funds and no Legal Aid availability.

Your last comment is interesting, though - my thinking has been that asking some questions with a 'framing' that would encourage answers that might support one's evidence / assertions (that are already 'framed' within a written submission to the court) would be about the only way a layman could really get through the process (as the cross-examiner), and your comments seem to suggest that is a good way forward, if I'm understanding it correctly?


I don't know how much weight a Judge gives to answers given by a Litigant in Person under interrogation cross-examination by a Barrister, as compared to written evidence submitted by the LiP and some (simplistic, relatively speaking) questions they ask of the Respondent...

I guess that depends a lot on the judge and how well the Barrister manages to twist the truth or infer things that didn't happen, and (of course) the quality of the evidence presented by each side.


I imagine the legal system would be a lot quicker and easier if things were so simple that could be answered on a motoring forum... lol

The short answer is indeed No.

The cardinal rule of cross examination is don't ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

Watch Keir Starmer on Prime Ministers Questions - look to Youtube - asking questions about Covid of Boris Johnson - apparently innocuous questions but designed to box BJ in to a position which he will regret.

[carinaman]

LosingGrip said:

Showed him the CCTV and his body language changed instantly. Leg shaking, dry mouth, no eye contact.

Thanks, that's useful to me to another context.

As an aside did they have a solicitor with them?

[LosingGrip]

carinaman said:

Thanks, that's useful to me to another context.

As an aside did they have a solicitor with them?

They did .

[Jasandjules]

Not really, You can learn the idea, but you need to practice.

You also need to know what the desired answers are i..e what you are attempting to elicit (which means knowing the law etc) before you ask and then seek to ask questions to box the person into a corner.

Are you seeking to cross examine against a witness statement?

[RSTurboPaul]

zzrman said:

The short answer is indeed No.

The cardinal rule of cross examination is don't ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

Watch Keir Starmer on Prime Ministers Questions - look to Youtube - asking questions about Covid of Boris Johnson - apparently innocuous questions but designed to box BJ in to a position which he will regret.

I had picked up the thing about only asking when you know the answers you will get from some skim reading of a few Amazon reviews of different books - it does sound easy in principle, but... lol

I'm no fan of Starmer but I did watch him in the house against BoJo at some point in the recent past (can't remember when) - he is a man I would not want to get into an argument with... That sort of skill is impressive - but being on the end of it under cross-examination would be very different to watching it from afar!


On a sort of related note, the 'knowing the answer' thing would seem to work if the person in the dock is definitely going to tell the truth...

... but what if they are submitting witness statements that have no basis in reality, and are (to put it bluntly) likely to just lie on the stand? What if they point-blank deny ever saying something that has been included in Cafcass or Social Services reports? Then what?!

I presume one would have to either 'trick' them into revealing it's a lie, show it's a lie from other evidence to that they are refuting, or ask enough questions that they end up saying something different in the end and trip themselves up...?


I have recently begun to understand why Barristers are so expensive...

[RSTurboPaul]

Jasandjules said:

Not really, You can learn the idea, but you need to practice.

You also need to know what the desired answers are i..e what you are attempting to elicit (which means knowing the law etc) before you ask and then seek to ask questions to box the person into a corner.

Are you seeking to cross examine against a witness statement?

Yes to the witness statement question!

The practice thing seems impossible unless one knows a friendly barrister or is prepared to pay for training

[LosingGrip]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I had four days training...what this means in practice was I did one interview in that time and watched my class do one each (I asked to do another as I knew it was something I wasn't confident in).

It's certainly a skill that is learnt on the job. I have eight weeks attachment to the interview team as part of my probation.

No comments...its down to us to prove they have committed it. Not for them to prove they didn't.

[RSTurboPaul]

LosingGrip said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I had four days training...what this means in practice was I did one interview in that time and watched my class do one each (I asked to do another as I knew it was something I wasn't confident in).

It's certainly a skill that is learnt on the job. I have eight weeks attachment to the interview team as part of my probation.

No comments...its down to us to prove they have committed it. Not for them to prove they didn't.

I'm sort of wishing it worked that way in Family Court - the ability to allude to things that have never happened or suggest black is white because of X and Y, without having to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt', works against those who are up against a Barrister!

[un1corn]

An untrained raddish could x-exam in mags court. Mags is just like an informal posh chat.

Not so much in crown.

[NMNeil]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I went to multiple interrogation technique classes with the FBI, DEA and Homeland Security.
Most rely on the fact that very few people can shut up, they want to talk to mislead you, and then it's easy to trip them up.
An example. I had a case where someones wallet had been stolen and the suspect had used one of the credit cards in a store. I had what was possibly the very worse still image from the surveillance video imaginable, and all it showed was a very grainy image of the top of the suspects head. It could have been anyone.
I started out with the standard Miranda warning and then got to questioning him. He swore blind that he knew nothing about any credit cards. I then put the picture in front of him and said "So why do we have a video showing you using the stolen credit card?".
He confessed to everything.