THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 24 | NOVEMBER 2025 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. videos of witness interviews and a transcript; many AI applications can generate a transcript with time stamps. If the witness admits to the prior inconsistent statement, then that finishes the inquiry on that prior inconsistent statement. If they deny the statement or claim a lack of memory, the lawyer must then call that witness to testify to the prior inconsistent statement. The examiner must remember that cross-examination is rarely going to be a Perry Mason moment. Often, the most effective cross- examination is to pin the witness down for destruction by other witnesses. One of the best examples of pinning down the witness is from the O.J. Simpson trial, when F. Lee Bailey asked Mark Fuhrman: “Have you ever referred to black people as n-- in the last 10 years?” “Not that I recall.” “So if you have called someone that, you have forgotten it?” “I can’t answer the question the way you have phrased it.” “Are you saying on your oath that you have never addressed any black person as a n-- or talked about black people as n-- in the last 10 years?” “I have not.” “So anyone who comes to this courtroom and says that you have would be a liar?” “Yes.” “All of them?” “Yes, all of them.” Most criminal defense lawyers at the time thought Mr. Bailey failed because he did not get Mr. Fuhrman to admit anything. The legal commentators gave him a grade of F at the time. It was a brilliant example of pinning him down, where the prosecution had no wiggle room to backtrack the lie. The above famous cross-examination is also a textbook example of calling a witness to impeach with the inconsistent statements they denied. However, Mr. Bailey knew he had the witnesses who could permanently destroy the credibility of Mr. Fuhrman, and Mr. Bailey and the team did exactly that. The defense called Kathleen Bell to testify that Mr. Fuhrman told her, “All of the n-- should be gathered together and burned.” Natalie Singer testified that Mr. Fuhrman said to her, “The only good n-- is a dead n--.” Then, they presented something most lawyers would only dream of discovering in a case: hearing the statements in Mr. Fuhrman’s own voice in Laura Hart McKinney’s recordings and transcripts, in which he used the N-word 42 times. Be confident in the questions. Practice the articulation, tone and manner of delivery. Remember, this is a performance for the jury, and likability matters. The jury expects the attorneys to be experts in their field. Think about vocabulary. No one enjoys a professorial lecturer, but it is best to avoid slang language.16 In everyday life, everyone engages in cross-examination to a certain extent, seeking to uncover the truth with children, co-workers and others. This process requires setting aside the courtroom setting and spectators; the colloquy between the lawyer and witness should make the answers less likely to be true. The goal is for the jury to listen to the conversation and think that the witness is not truthful. The examiner must remember that crossexamination is rarely going to be a Perry Mason moment. Often, the most effective cross-examination is to pin the witness down for destruction by other witnesses.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==