• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Guttman, Buschner & Brooks

  • Home
  • Areas of Practice
    • High Impact Litigation
    • Whistleblower and False Claim Cases
    • Employment Litigation and Civil Rights – Employees
    • Employment Counseling and Litigation – Employers
    • Corporate Governance
  • Successes
  • Articles
  • Attorneys
    • Justin S. Brooks
    • Traci L. Buschner
    • Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.)
    • Dan Guttman
    • Reuben A. Guttman
    • Dr. Caroline Poplin
    • Elizabeth H. Shofner
    • Aaron Welo
  • Amicus
  • Videos
  • Contact Us
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn

July 2, 2021 By Reuben A. Guttman

The Leading Question: Rethinking How We Teach Direct Examination

Trial instructors across the country implore students not to ask leading questions on direct examination. For their part, students struggle to formulate lines of inquiry devoid of leading questions. Amidst their quandary, students find themselves perplexed when they watch demonstrations or clips from real trials and see leading questions frequently used on direct examination. So what’s the deal?

Perhaps students are taught a practice without an appreciation for the source of the practice. Federal Rule of Evidence 611 outlines the “Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence.” It is a short and easily understood rule. It is also a rule that is probably not taught in law school evidence classes. Yet FRE 611 is a gold mine of information because, among other things, it specifically addresses the use of leading questions. FRE 611(c) states:

(c) Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily, the court should allow leading questions:

(1) on cross-examination; and

(2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.

The rules of evidence do not categorically proscribe leading questions on direct; they may be used “as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony.” Questions that are foundational or involve matters that are not in dispute are the types of questions that can be posed as leading questions. Doing so creates efficiencies; it moves the case along. Interposing leading questions under these circumstances also makes the dialogue we call “direct examination” more natural and less formulaic. Think about a recent conversation with a friend or relative: it is human nature to cut to the chase with a leading question. And with court systems burdened with litigation—especially as we emerge from the pandemic—cutting to the chase is an efficiency that moves dockets.

For a new lawyer or one learning litigation skills, FRE 611 is empowering. Consider this line of questioning:

Q: Officer Smith, you were riding in the police cruiser with Officer Jones when Officer Jones pulled over my client’s vehicle?

Opposing Counsel: Objection: leading.

Counsel: Your Honor, I am just trying to move this proceeding along; this is foundational, and this is not a matter in dispute.

Judge: Overruled.

None of this is to say that students should not be taught how to ask non-leading questions or how to develop the skill of using prompts that turn the witness on direct examination into the storyteller. Learning how to use words like “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” and “how,” or similar words that place the witness in the driver’s seat as the storyteller, is an important skill. Yet it is also important to learn where to use leading questions to move the testimony along. Moving it along empowers the decision-maker—judge or jury—to focus on the witness when important questions, such as those dealing with matters in dispute, are asked.

Primary Sidebar

Information

  • Where to Start
  • Whistleblower Information
  • Federal & State False Claims Acts
  • Protecting Whistleblowers
  • rguttmanReuben A. Guttman
    Senior Founding Partner


    (202) 800-3002
    rguttman@gbblegal.com

    Practice Areas
    Consumer Law
    Complex Litigation
    Complex Employment and Labor
    Civil Rights

    Education
    Emory Law School (J.D., 1985)
    University of Rochester (BA, 1981)

    Admissions
    The State of Georgia
    The District of Columbia
    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
    The State of New Jersey
    The Supreme Court of the United States
    The United States District Courts for the
    - District of Columbia
    - District of New Jersey
    - District of Nebraska
    - Northern District of Georgia
    - District of Maryland
    - Western District of Michigan
    -Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    The United States Courts of Appeal for the
    - Third Circuit
    - Fourth Circuit
    - D.C. Circuit.

    Boards/Memberships
    Fellow of the American Bar Foundation

    American Bar Association Fellows


    Reuben A. Guttman
    Rated by Super Lawyers

    loading ...





Footer

Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC

Washington DC Office NEW!
Embassy Row District
1509 22nd Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20037
Phone: 202-800-3001



Pennsylvania Office: New!
450 N. Narberth Avenue
Suite 102
Narberth, PA 19072
(610) 547-9556
CLE: GBB partner, Reuben Guttman, and Professor JC Lore of Rutgers Law to present CLE covering topic in their book, Pretrial Advocacy, Wolters Kluwer-NITA (2021).” To register or learn More
More about the book here

Articles

The Travesty of The US News Rankings: How Legal Education Should Be Measured

Demanding more impact from impact litigation: lessons to be learned from multi-state opioid settlements

Webinar: Non-state actors and global environmental governance in China

More Articles

Copyright © 2023 · Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC
Disclaimer