Case ID: mich-np-r_2/html/0154-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUGGESTIONS TO LAWYERS.
    By C. R. Brown.
    Read no authority fr&m reports, without first having exam iri'ed the ease so as to be able to state the main facts.
    Read only so much as bears directly upon the point. If the Judge comprehends readily, nothing more .is required. If he does not, all that you read, not bearing directly upon the point, only tends to confuse rather than enlighten.
    Never read án authority to support your position when the Court concurs with you. It is proper to ask, whenver a question arises, if the Court'en.tertains doubts, and upon what particular'points; and while the Judge, in doubtful cases, should not decide without a full hearing, it is considered to be no compromise of that dignity which pertains to the Bench, for the Judge to intimate to counsel the points upon which he. desires argument and authorities. If the Court intimates a desire not to hear you, you may take it for granted your opponent will give the Court the benefit of his researches, if he disagrees with you, and you will then have an opportunity to be heard, if the first impressions of the Judge have been modified or changed.
    Don’t except to rulings which you know are purely discretionary. It is difficult for the Judge,in such case, to determine what motive dictates the exception — whether it is from force of habit, ignorance of the law, or to annoy the Court and lumber up the record.
    One exception upon the same point, and involving the same principle is just as effectual as a dozen. Hence, when a ruling has been made upon a question deemed to be vital, it is difficult to conceive what is to be gained by interposing objection after objection upon the same point.
    
      Never ask the same question more than twice to the same witness. If he tries to evade your question,the jury and Court can hardly fail to discover it, and will weigh the testimony according to its merits. By pressing even an unwilling witness to an unreasonable extent, jurors are very apt to get the idea that you are trying to persecute, or that you are hard pressed to make out your case.
    The cross-examination of an honest witness should be con. ducted with candor, and the questions put should be directly to the point in issue. A different course of examination is almost sure to prejudice a jury against the attorney, and too often, it is feared, against'his innocent client.
    In the cross-examination of a witness whom you believe to be dishonest, it is well to measure his mental calibre before open. ing your broadside upon him. Too many attorneys take it for granted that they are so much sharper than the witness that they will have no difficulty in exposing his falsehood ; when, in fact, it often happens that the questions put, only serve to point out to the witness any inconsistencies that may have appeared in his testimony in chief, and thus enable him, so to speak, to cover his tracks with fresh falsehoods.
    It is unfortunate for the client when bis counsel, forgetting his duty as an officer of the Court, seeks a petty quarrel with a witness, and when he conceives he has said a sharp thing, or has cornered the witness, to appeal to the jury with a broad triumphant grin, indicative of a degree of self-satisfaction, seeming to say, “ I’ve got him now. Didn’t I do that nice ?” In nine cases out of ten, of this character, the jury, if allowed to answer, would say, “ Yes, you have bulliéd an honest witness into a falsehood. It is unfortunate for the cause of truth, that you have not less cheek and more brains ”
    Some lawyers, if permitted, indulge in cross-bar controversies, and seem t© relish it. It is hardly necessary to remark that suoh a habit should be avoided.
    The habit of making constant objections to the introduction of evidence, without being able to assign any reason for such objections, indicates a desire to suppress the truth, and 9 jury are not slow inng discoverithat fact.
    
      Iu almost every cause there are many facts important to the issue known to both parties. In such cases it is believed that honest attorneys will not hesitate to admit such facts at the commencement of the trial, and thus save much valuable time and expense.
    The rules of practice, and the rules of evidence, are designed to develop the truth as to matters in controversy between the parties, and when these rules are,urged and their operation invoked to suppress the truth and strangle justice,-it is like stealing “ the livery of Heaven to serve the devil in.”