Guest viewing is limited
- You have a limited number of page views remaining
- 2 guest views remaining
- Register now to remove this limitation
Cross-Examination questions and help
- Thread starter Djc
- Start date
Hi, and welcome.
I haven't been to a Final Hearing yet, now more than 2 yrs into this. But I have been to Court nine times so far...and counting.
My best advice would to be polite and firm but not forthright. "I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that (question)". "I am able to tell you that (this happened (brief detail)), but my actions/words/choices were always for the welfare of X and Y". "I would like to recall that event and give an explanation but it didn't take place and so I'm sorry not to be able to help".
I always think it's important to tell the truth, and in context, with pre emptive statements beginning as above, for eg, "I would like to but....".
Saying nothing ie no comment might not cut it: being too open might not either. Being firm, confident and factual, without being forthright, and always demonstrating a passiveness to the questions and a complete focus on X and Y might help.
I'm hopeful someone else can add to this.
SS.
I haven't been to a Final Hearing yet, now more than 2 yrs into this. But I have been to Court nine times so far...and counting.
My best advice would to be polite and firm but not forthright. "I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that (question)". "I am able to tell you that (this happened (brief detail)), but my actions/words/choices were always for the welfare of X and Y". "I would like to recall that event and give an explanation but it didn't take place and so I'm sorry not to be able to help".
I always think it's important to tell the truth, and in context, with pre emptive statements beginning as above, for eg, "I would like to but....".
Saying nothing ie no comment might not cut it: being too open might not either. Being firm, confident and factual, without being forthright, and always demonstrating a passiveness to the questions and a complete focus on X and Y might help.
I'm hopeful someone else can add to this.
SS.
Many thanks for the advice, I like your advice with the 'I am able to tell you' and Im sorry etc' - I'm approaching a double-figure in terms of legal years for our case, (started 2012) and also into a second final hearing for contact... I am trying to establish the strongest route regards to cross-examining the mother in all her lies, deceit, continually preventing contact etc. Good luck with your case though. Hope it goes well.
Oh goodness, a decade is grim, I feel for you. I will console myself that my own children will be well past their consentual age before a decade ticks over.
I note you have the FH experience already. So you are at least aware of what that entails. May I ask you to recount that experience here, and what went well and what didn't?
Thank you for noting my advice. In the simplest form it is this (and in this techno age it is all over everything): if someone writes or says "sorry".....it is not actually genuine. If someone uses the pronoun "I'm sorry" it is. Have a think about that. Pre cursing court verbal statements in the right manner counts for a lot in my opinion.
Take care, SS.
I note you have the FH experience already. So you are at least aware of what that entails. May I ask you to recount that experience here, and what went well and what didn't?
Thank you for noting my advice. In the simplest form it is this (and in this techno age it is all over everything): if someone writes or says "sorry".....it is not actually genuine. If someone uses the pronoun "I'm sorry" it is. Have a think about that. Pre cursing court verbal statements in the right manner counts for a lot in my opinion.
Take care, SS.
Examples I have seen of barrister cross examinations are to try to catch the other person out lying. So for example a question may be
"In your statement you say that the Father never turns up on time, is that right?"
She says yes. You go onto
"In your statement you also say that when the Father goes to pick the children up from school they don't want to go with him, is that right?"
She says yes. You go onto
"So if the Father goes to the school to collect the children and you claim they don't want to go, then he must be there on time, mustn't he? Because you say the school witnessed these incidents and you were there?"
She seems flummoxed and starts coming out with various things. You go onto
"What were you doing at the school when the court order says the children are in the Father's care at that time?"
That isn't a good example actually - there are better ones. But basically - read her statement carefully and look for contradictions, or things that are untrue and evidence in emails etc either you or she have submitted as evidence, to show it's untrue. She is bound to have slipped up somewhere contradicting herself.
The point of cross examination is to prove the other person has lied in their statement about something. If you can show that then her statement is written off basically and nothing believed. Which is why your statement needs to be 100% accurate! Better to leave something out than put something in that is vague, or slightly exaggerated or could be contradictory.
"In your statement you say that the Father never turns up on time, is that right?"
She says yes. You go onto
"In your statement you also say that when the Father goes to pick the children up from school they don't want to go with him, is that right?"
She says yes. You go onto
"So if the Father goes to the school to collect the children and you claim they don't want to go, then he must be there on time, mustn't he? Because you say the school witnessed these incidents and you were there?"
She seems flummoxed and starts coming out with various things. You go onto
"What were you doing at the school when the court order says the children are in the Father's care at that time?"
That isn't a good example actually - there are better ones. But basically - read her statement carefully and look for contradictions, or things that are untrue and evidence in emails etc either you or she have submitted as evidence, to show it's untrue. She is bound to have slipped up somewhere contradicting herself.
The point of cross examination is to prove the other person has lied in their statement about something. If you can show that then her statement is written off basically and nothing believed. Which is why your statement needs to be 100% accurate! Better to leave something out than put something in that is vague, or slightly exaggerated or could be contradictory.