Equally important, knowing the main points. The jury does not want to hear "fluff" or filler. They only care about the important points you put forth, and how they support your main argument. The questions you ask the witness have to directly relate to your argument, otherwise they serve no purpose.
Based on the trial I saw today, there were very good questions but on both sides the witnesses did not seem prepared enough to answer the cross-examiners' questions. However, in fairness, certain questions were quite vague. Also, there were some statements made by the witnesses that did not clearly support Napolean's defense.
I agree with you. Many of the witnesses today spent too much time reading quotes, or passages from books that they didn't even understand themselves.
ReplyDeleteLets take the example of the 'Expert on the Napoleonic Code'
The job of an expert is to take difficult to understand, or confusing information, and offer their best interpretation/explanation of it. They should be explaining themselves clearly, giving statements that can be understood by unqualified laypeople. All that the Napoleonic Code expert did during her direct examination was read quotes that even she didn't fully understand. Reading quotes from the Napoleonic code didn't help us understand what it was really about (even after she did her best to translate it).