{"id":2610,"date":"2019-03-21T08:00:14","date_gmt":"2019-03-21T12:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/venfort.com\/?p=898"},"modified":"2019-03-21T08:00:14","modified_gmt":"2019-03-21T12:00:14","slug":"interrogation-in-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/venfort.com\/en\/el-interrogatorio-en-derecho\/","title":{"rendered":"Credibility in the interrogation, a value to be built in law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Letting the truth be the guide for each of the professional actions is the most honest way and the only real possibility to build credibility, especially when working in areas where the word is fundamental, as in the world of law. The trial lawyer assumes the responsibility before a court and witnesses to successfully defend his client. When this professional activity is carried out in accordance with ethics and morality, the preparation of questions for the interrogation of witnesses is done in a quick and precise manner, without leaving any loose ends.
<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Cross-examination of witnesses supporting the defense theory is an important aspect of the defense theory. <\/strong>in the litigation and therefore, the lawyer must be cautious<\/a> in the selection of the questions and in the way they are elaborated. The questions should always be clear, precise and concise, with the intention that the interlocutor is able to fully understand the questioning and that none of the words are open to misinterpretation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once the attorney understands that truthfulness and honesty are the key pieces in building witness credibility, the following recommendations help to achieve this more quickly and optimally:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
  1. Before including a witness who is part of the arguments in support of the case<\/strong>The professional must consider the relevance of his or her testimony to clarify the facts and provide information of interest to the defense. These aspects must be clearly studied and evaluated beforehand.<\/li>
  2. Interrogation only works when it has a defined objective<\/strong>. It is not valid to go fishing in questioning because the defense could be severely affected in these cases.<\/li>
  3. The first questions asked to the witness must therefore clarify doubts<\/strong> about its provenance and generate confidence in the court. In other words, the lawyer must ask questions that validate the importance of his witness for the case. This is impossible if the professional does not have it completely clear within himself.<\/li>
  4. As mentioned above, the first questions are focused on the presentation of the witness.<\/strong>. It is important to emphasize that it is not necessary to include in the dialogue data that do not provide relevant information. These initial questions will also build trust between the attorney and your witness.<\/li>
  5. As part of the witness's presentation, it is vital to include questions that demonstrate<\/strong> the non-connection of the witness with the persons involved in the case, which will determine the conflict of interest that may arise. The lawyer should be attentive to this point, with the intention of maintaining clarity at all times, denying information is counterproductive to the case.<\/li>
  6. Once the presentation has been completed, a battery of questions will be asked.<\/strong> to go deeper into the testimony for which the person was called to the legal process. At this stage it is crucial to understand that the confidence of the witness is also built based on his or her personal knowledge of the facts, the circumstances from which he or she was able to record them, his or her memory, his or her retentive and expressive capacities, and even the aspects that give him or her objectivity in the narration.<\/li>
  7. All information gathered prior to the questioning of your witnesses<\/strong> and subsequent to this event must be sufficiently optimal to generate solid lines of defense for the case. It is a lawyer's professional skill to know how to take advantage of this litigation tool with professionalism and ethics.<\/li>
  8. When obtaining the desired information in an interrogation, the most prudent thing to do is to cease the interrogation.<\/strong>. Sometimes, introducing new pieces into the game can complicate the defense.<\/li>
  9. If the lawyer does not know the answer<\/strong> it is better not to risk asking the question.<\/li>
  10. In the event of any response outside the established script<\/strong>When faced with a witness who is lying, it is important that the professional does not lose his or her balance and shows that he or she can handle all the options presented.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    At ALAN ALDANA & ABOGADOS, we always remember that it is better to have one good witness than one and a half.....<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Sources consulted<\/h4>\n\n\n\n