An Amusing Trial Lawyer Anecdote?

The following is a true story that may or may not amuse, depending on your point of view.

One morning during a long trial, a young associate was delighted by the news that his boss, the lead trial lawyer, was going to allow him to cross-examine a defense witness after lunch. The cross-examination took place later that day without a hitch, and the young lawyer was justifiably proud.

That night at dinner, the young lawyer had all sorts of questions for his boss. He started with the first: "How come you let me do the cross-examination?"

The lead trial lawyer knew the answer, but wasn't sure how to respond. Finally, he decided that he should answer honestly, since it seemed like the truth might contain an important lesson for the young lawyer.

"I let you do the cross-examination," the lead lawyer said, "so that the jury would know just how unimportant that witness was."

According to the story, the young lawyer didn't take the explanation very well. He was so unhappy about it, in fact, that he was still recounting it years later to anyone who cared to listen, hoping that they'd be shocked, as he was, that his former boss, the lead trial lawyer, had so heartlessly duped him into playing the role of fool before the jury.

Most who heard his story, however, just laughed. 

Publication note: Originally published 9/2/05.

Comments

[Eh Nonymous]

As that young lawyer... just kidding.

That's hilarious, and unfortunate that the junior lawyer had to be duped. If he'd been a good enough actor, he could have been _told_ ahead of time that this was a wash witness, suitable for batting practice for a newbie. Then he could preen himself up, put on a fancy suit, and look delighted at himself as he asked the cross-exam questions.

Meanwhile, the other lawyers present on his side would ignore him, catch up on paperwork, and otherwise pretend nothing important was going on.

Then he could sit down, proudly, and the other lawyers could smirk.

That would work just fine, without lying to anyone, including the jury.

[Rufus]

It's a funny story, but I think the lead lawyer overestimated the jury's ability to make a distinction between the lead lawyer and the junior lawyer. Most jurors would assume that if the junior lawyer is at the trial and actually doing work then he is a competent lawyer and that the witnesses he questions must have some relevance to the case. I doubt that they sat in the jury room and said, Witness X's testimony is irrelevant because the "kid" cross examined him.

[mythago]

I'd agree--it's one thing to tell a newbie "Look, this isn't important, so go ahead and get some practice on it," and another to pull this kind of gotcha.

[All Writs]

The story is oft told and true. Juries aren't stupid, they know who the lead lawyer is and who is a newby. The first clue is the newby looks under 30 (or 35 depending on the lawyer), lead counsel is normally in his mid to late forties or older. You don't give the "kid" an imprtance witness.

The only advantage having a junior associate doing cross over merely standing up and saying "no questions" (in both cases the jury realizes the witness is either unimportant or said nothing that hurt you) is that the associate gets a little batting practice with real witnesses, real objections, oh yeah, and real butterflies.

Finally, if you tell the associate in advance it is a nothing witness you lose the benefit of them learning inspite of their fear.

[mythago _]

Because they wouldn't normally have any fear at all of getting up in front of the court, jury, and their boss to do a cross-examination?

[Beldar]

An unimportant witness, when badly mishandled, can quickly and irreparably become an important witness. Assuming that the senior lawyer understood this, then the young associate should have been pleased by the implied vote of confidence. That he felt he'd been played a fool speaks poorly of his maturity. The appropriate response would have been to nod, ponder, and file the tactic away for possible future use himself. Retelling the story for years thereafter might indeed have been appropriate — but humorously and self-depricatingly, as a sharing of lore and wisdom, rather than to seek sympathy for how he'd been abused. The truth did indeed contain an important lesson for the young lawyer, but it sounds as though his ego prevented him from learning it.

[Evan]

Beldar: Good comment. I'm glad you added your perspective.

[mythago]

What 'implied vote of confidence'? There was an overt vote of non-confidence.

[Jon]

Mythango, I think the 'implied vote of confidence' was in giving the young lawyer the chance to cross examine someone who, while unimportant if the cross was done correctly, could be disasterous if done incorrectly. The senior litigator was confident that the junior would not foul it up to that degree. Compredre-vous?