All characters and other entities appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual persons, scenarios or actual events is purely coincidental, but unfortunately almost a certainty.

As I interviewed a key witness a week before the trial, I became increasingly optimistic about the case. The witness presented well, answered questions in a reasonable way, and seemed to have no difficulty grasping what I was explaining about the proper way to answer questions when in the witness box. The conversation concluded along the following lines:

Me: So it is very important that you remember a couple of simple rules. Listen to the question, answer the question, and answer only the question. If the question can be answered with a ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘don’t know’, or ‘don’t recall’, then just answer in that way. Please do not elaborate unless asked to do so.

Witness: Yes, short answers unless I am asked to explain.

Me: Good. So if you are asked a question, please focus on that question. Do not ignore it and talk about other things that you want to talk about instead. All the evidence we need from you is already in your affidavit. I will have a chance to ask you questions at the end in re-examination if something needs to be clarified.

Witness: I understand. I will just answer the questions that I am asked.

Me: It is also very important that you give a good impression. Please be patient with the cross-examiner. For example, even if he asks similar questions multiple times, just answer the question with an even temper, unless I object.

Witness: Of course. I am not going to argue. I am just there to answer questions.

Me: And please be familiar with your affidavit. It has been a while since you swore it, so can you please look over it and the documents referred to in it?

Witness: Yes, I will look over it several times. Of course I will do that. I am familiar with the facts in it anyway. It is my evidence and my recollection.

Me: Good. Is there anything that I have spoken about that you do not understand?

Witness: No, not at all. It all makes sense.

Fast forward to one week later …

The witness’s cross-examination started so well, with no hint of what was to come. For at least the first hour, the witness answered questions with the even temper and focus that was expected following the interview the previous week. However, after the morning adjournment, everything took a decidedly downhill turn:

Cross-examiner: Did you cause the company to make payments out of its account?

Witness: You have asked that question before. I refuse to answer it over and over again.

Judge: The cross-examiner is entitled to ask you questions. And if I recall, you did not answer the question when it was previously asked but started making a speech. [To the cross-examiner] Can you please ask your question again.

Cross-examiner: Did you cause the company to make payments out of its account?

Witness: I put in all of the work, and it was left to me to manage the company.

Cross-examiner: That is not a responsive answer.

Witness: The questions that you are asking me are not relevant. I have dealt with this all in my affidavit anyway.

Judge: It is not for you to decide what is or is not a relevant question. The process will be much quicker if you answer the questions that are asked, which is what you are here to do.

Cross-examiner: I suggest to you that you have not dealt with this issue in your affidavit.

Witness: I am sure it is in there somewhere. It has been so long since I last looked at it and I only read it quickly ... Can you show it to me?

The rest of the cross-examination continued in much of the same vein, and I deflated internally as the day continued. On the plus side, though, I was given an excellent opportunity to practice the art of appearing entirely indifferent to the cross-examination – maintaining an impenetrable Zen expression that suggested everything was as anticipated – and to focus on how I would return the favour. One must look for the silver lining in every situation.