Courtroom
Litigation
Storytelling
Criminal defense
representing the criminal defendant
Cross Examination Made Simple Part II: Impeachment by Inconsistent Statement (And Omission)
In this presentation, the speaker covers preparation for cross-examination; the three steps for impeachment that are tried and true; pitfalls to avoid; a flexible technique for cross-examination that can be used with virtually any adverse witness; impeachment by omission; and how to expose the liar, the cheat, and the fool. Finally, he walks you through hypotheticals that demonstrate how to apply these rules practically in the courtroom.
Webinar
Nov 18 2025, Tuesday
02:30 PM EDT
120
Minutes
Basic Level
Code: GRC0000133
Trial lawyers, Criminal defense attorneys, Personal injury attorneys, ADR attorneys
How does the concept of "paper" play a crucial role in the preparation for cross-examination?
In what ways can the credibility of a witness be undermined through impeachment by inconsistent statements?
Can you explain the three steps involved in the impeachment process during cross-examination and their significance?
What strategies can a lawyer employ to ensure that the jury perceives the earlier statement as more credible than the current testimony?
How does the use of a witness's prior statement influence the effectiveness of cross-examination?
What are the potential pitfalls a lawyer should avoid when conducting a cross-examination that involves impeachment by inconsistent statements?
How does the emotional core of a lawyer influence their approach to cross-examination, particularly when dealing with witnesses?
In what ways can the omission of a statement by a witness be used as a tool for impeachment, and what are the conditions for its effectiveness?
How does the format and presentation of questions impact the witness's responses during cross-examination?
What role does the understanding of human nature and motivation play in effectively conducting cross-examinations?
How can a lawyer balance the need for aggressive questioning with the importance of maintaining credibility with the jury?
What are the implications of allowing a witness to explain inconsistencies during cross-examination?
In what situations might it be more beneficial for a lawyer to read the impeaching statement rather than allowing the witness to read it themselves?
How can a lawyer prepare for the possibility of a redirect examination after conducting a cross-examination?
What techniques can be employed to engage the jury actively during cross-examination, and why is this important?
There are new approaches to behavioural interviewing that are more effective, but interviewers must continue to take car...
By MICHAEL DEBLIS
The unique exposures related to the remote work environment involved wage and hour compliance, disability accommodation,...
By MICHAEL DEBLIS
Good documentation just doesn’t happen by accident. Left to our own devices, many of us probably think we have bet...
By MICHAEL DEBLIS
“The future belongs to individuals and companies who embrace the entrepreneurial spirit, whether that is inside or...
By A properly-composed JHA/AHA is one of the primary documents that large clients are increasingly asking to review in adva...
By DAN SCUNGIO
Skills-based hiring has been a topic of interest for many businesses and governments for the past few years. But even as...
By MARK SMITH