One of the most effective weapons that a criminal defense attorney has against the prosecution in a criminal case is their ability to cross-examine witnesses.

For prosecutors to prove a case, if the defense challenges them, they must present witnesses to the stand to substantiate the evidence against a person. The criminal defense attorney will then be given the opportunity to cross-examine each of the witnesses.

This is where the rubber meets the road in criminal defense. If you cannot challenge the witnesses through an effective cross-examination, then the prosecutors will be successful, and your client will be found guilty and probably punished severely.

Over the last twenty-five years, I have cross-examined witnesses in trials and motions across the country. Obviously, I wouldn't still be in the criminal defense game if I didn't have some cross-examination skills. 

What I've done is put some structure into my cross-examination in certain areas that come up repeatedly, so that when I see the area coming up, I'm ready to proceed. Some of the concepts I'd like to discuss here are what I call looping, hitting the target, and fishing.

I will explain these concepts in detail so you can see how to structure your cross-examination effectively.

Looping When It Comes To Cross-Examination

Looping, a powerful technique, involves presenting your most compelling point to the jury, repeating it three times to ensure it resonates and the jury takes note. This technique empowers you to control the narrative and guide the jury's understanding. 

They remember it when it comes to that witness and even the prosecutor's case in its entirety. For example, suppose you have information that a witness has a history of committing perjury.

In that case, you can ask the witness about it – sir, isn't it true that you committed perjury in the past, which has to do with lying under penalty of perjury?

And when the person says yes, then you'll loop it three times. When you committed perjury in the past, you were testifying at a trial just like you are now. And when you were committing perjury in the past, you were lying under oath?

Lastly, sir, when you committed perjury in the past, you were doing the same thing you're doing today—not telling the truth in front of a jury. This is a highly effective concept when used correctly. You have to figure out what your theme is in the case and what the crucial things are that you want to get out in front of a jury.

Then, you loop them three times so the jury knows. Of course, you come back in the closing argument and hammer it again, and that's usually the reasonable doubt that wins the case for the criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles. For instance, if a witness has a history of changing their testimony to favor the prosecution, you can point out that they've been inconsistent in their statements. This can help establish a pattern of unreliable testimony.

Hitting The Puppy On The Nose

This is a concept where, when a witness becomes uncooperative or tries to evade a question, you need to assertively bring them back to the point. If you do cross-examination in Los Angeles or anywhere across the country for long enough, you're going to see that witnesses don't like to cooperate in criminal cases.

Once they see that you're trying to embarrass them or make your point, they will try to weasel out of answering the question and be uncooperative. This is when you have to hit the puppy in the nose.

When you have some prior testimony of a witness, for example, in a preliminary hearing, and that testimony is under penalty of perjury, and the person is saying something inconsistent with it in the trial, that's when you have to hit the inconsistency hard. This technique, when executed effectively, can significantly undermine the witness's reliability and credibility, boosting your confidence in the case.

Hence, they realize that if they start lying and changing their testimony, they'll be embarrassed and taken to task in front of a jury. For example, if you ask a witness a question, such as 'What color was the car? '

They testified that the car was red at the preliminary hearing, and now they want to change the color of the car to green at the trial to help the prosecutors. You can then say to them, "Sir, isn't it true that you testified at the preliminary hearing in this case?"

Yes. And that was under penalty of perjury. Yes. And you swore to tell the truth there. Yes. And when you were testifying under the penalty of perjury, the judge was there, and you said that your testimony was good, true, and accurate, correct?

Yes. And at the preliminary hearing, didn't you say that the car was red? And if they say anything but 'yes,' then you show them the preliminary hearing transcript and ask if that refreshes their recollection. If they try to get out of that, you say to the Judge,

Your Honor, I'd like you to take judicial notice of the fact that this witness testified that the car was red at the preliminary hearing. Now, once you have that locked in, you spin back and look at them and say, ' Why are you saying the car is green now, sir? ' Are you trying to help the prosecutors?

You can go on and on with that. It is a highly effective tool for undermining the witness's reliability and credibility. If that's the key witness for the prosecution, you can often win the case on that.

Fishing

This final concept concerns cross-examination when a witness is on the stand and you want to make a good point, but you know that once you bring up the problem area, the witness will try to evade it, much like a fisherman evading a hook. 

Once you hook the fish, the fish is going to get off the hook. So, the key is to set the hook very deep in the fish's mouth so that once it starts to wiggle,

it can't get away. You can reel it up, and you've got your fish—same concept in cross-examination. Once the witness sees that they're going to be embarrassed and that they've been caught in a lie, inconsistency, or problem in their testimony, they're then going to try to backpedal and get out of it, so you want to make sure that you set that hook deep.

You ask them about an issue. They say, "Yes, that's true," and then you say, "Are you sure that's true, sir?" Yes, it is.

That statement is just as good as the rest of the testimony in your case. Yeah, and you feel very confident about it? Right. And do you have any memory issues, by any chance? No, I don't. I usually set the hook fifteen questions deep, and then you say, well, wait a minute,

I've got this document here, and it shows just the opposite of what you just testified. Now they're going to trigger and try to wiggle off the hook and say, "Wait a minute." They'll try to explain themselves, and this is where you look at them and listen; we just went through fifteen questions about that.

You said that was as good as the rest of your testimony. You just said that the information was accurate and correct, and now you're trying to get off the hook. And then that's where their credibility is once again compromised, and you can win a criminal case using one of these powerful concepts.