Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/160

 Rh

119

ness who has testified to no material fact the wording of his testimony bear all the earmarks of fabrication, it is often useful, as against you. And yet, strange as it may your first question, to ask him to repeat his seem, the courts are full of young lawyers— story. Usually he will repeat it in almost and alas! not only young ones—who seem to identically the same words as before, show feel it their duty to cross-examine every wit ing he has learned it by heart. Of course it ness who is sworn. They seem afraid that is possible, though not probable, that he has their clients or the jury will suspect them of done this and still is telling the truth. Try ignorance or inability to conduct a trial. It him by taking him to the middle of his story, not infrequently happens that such un and from there jump him quickly to the benecessary examinations result in the de velopment of new theories of the case for the ¡ ginning and then to the end of it. If he is speaking by rote rather than from recollec other side; and a witness who might have tion, he will be sure to succumb to this been disposed of as harmless by mere silence, method. He has no facts with which to as develops into a formidable obstacle in the sociate the wording of his story; he can case" (p. 113). only call it to mind as a whole, and not in de ''Embarrassment is one of the emblems of tachments. Draw his attention to other facts perjury, but by no means always so. The entirely disassociated with the main story as novelty and difficulty of the situation—be told by himself. He will be entirely unpre ing called upon to testify before a room full pared for these new inquiries, and will draw of people, with lawyers on all sides ready to upon his imagination for answers. Distract ridicule or abuse—often occasions embar his thoughts again to some new part of his rassment in witnesses of the highest in main story and then suddenly, when his mind tegrity. Then again some people are con is upon another subject, return to those con stitutionally nervous and could be nothing siderations to which you had first called his else when testifying in open court. Let us attention, and ask him the same questions a be sure our witness is not of this type before second time. He will again fall back upon we subject him to the particular form of his imagination and very likely will give a torture we have in store for the perjurer. different answer ifrom the first—and you Witnesses of a low grade of intelligence, have him in the net. He cannot invent an when they testify falsely, usually display it in swers as fast as you can invent questions, various ways: in the voice, in a certain vacant and at the same time remember his previous expression of the eyes, in a nervous twist inventions correctly; he will not keep his ing about in the witness chair, in an appar answers all consistent with one another. He ent effort to recall to mind the exact wording will soon become confused and, from that of their story, and especially in the use of time on, will be at your mercy. Let him go language not suited to their station in life. as soon as you have made it apparent that On the other hand, there is something about he is not mistaken, but lying." fpp. 58-601. the manner of an honest but ignorant witness that makes it at once manifest to an experi These are fair samples of the author's tone; enced lawyer that he is narrating only the and they indicate clearly that he can be trust things that he has actually seen and heard. ed not to suggest dishonorable or even The expression of the face changes with the merely dilatory tactics, and that he does narrative as he recalls the scene to his mind; not regard cross-examination as a mode he looks the examiner full in the face; his eye of overthrowing the truth. Indeed, many brightens as he recalls to mind the various a reader will pay the author the compliment incidents; he uses gestures natural to a man of saying that the soundness of the author's in his station of life, and suits them to the theory is too obvious. Such a statement has part of the story he is narrating, and he tells in it one element of truth, namely, that it is his tale in his own accustomed language. less difficult to theorize about cross-examina If, however, the manner of the witness and tion than to practise it; but the author has