This web site is dedicated to exposing stupid tricks that lawyers use all the time to divert justice from pursuing the truth. The justice system was intended to provide a method to resolve disputes in a non-violent manner. That is to say, to obtain justice. Lawyers use stupid tricks to turn the pursuit of justice in to the pursuit of winning at all costs.   This site is not for the distribution of legal advice. It is for the amusement of all involved.
 

Yes or No Answer:

A common trick is to force the witness to answer a broad question with Yes or No   For example, "Given that is was at night, can you positively identify my client as the burglar". As with most things in life, answers are rarely Yes or No., The witness is tempted to answer "There was a street light only a few feet away.... " At which point the lawyer will say, "Please answer Yes or No".
Answer: "If I am restricted to a Yes or No, that answer is yes" Not receiving the answer the lawyer expected or wanted, the lawyer will allow you to give a more descriptive answer.
 

Rapid fire questions:

In an attempt to confuse a witness, lawyers will ask a series of questions with out allowing the witness to answer any of them. Many times asking the same question in different ways to solicit a Yes when the question is asked one way and a No when it is reposed. When an attempt is made to answer a question, it is always unclear to which question the answer belongs. The lawyer will try to associate the answer to a different question then the witness intended. Once the witness tries to correct the confusion, the lawyer gets to portray the witness as confused and unsure. Saying thing like, "Well is it Yes or No??"
Answer: Simply stop saying anything. Once the lawyer stops asking questions, respond with "Yes, Yes, No, No No, Yes....." The lawyer will appear confused and you say since you were not allowed time to answer 20 questions that were asked, you are now answering them in the order they were asked. The lawyer is forced to try to associate the answers with the questions. The lawyer will then be the one who appears confused.
 
 

The Jury will please disregard:

Lawyers will ask questions that are not admissible to give information to the jury that is not allowed. The lawyer did not just make a simple mistake. It is usually done deliberately. Hopefully, the other lawyer will object and the judge will instruct the jury to disregard the question. An example might be: "I see you were arrested for DUI when you were 16". Since juvenile records are not normally admissible, the information would not be allowed. Either the other lawyer or the judge will object and the lawyer gets to say "I withdraw the question" and the judge instructs the jury to disregard the question. To quote a legal phase, "It is not possible to un-ring a bell". One can not be simply instructed to ignore something they heard.
Answer: It works both ways. When asked a question, you could say something that would be
hearsay or normally inadmissible.
 
 

Are you 100% sure:

This is similar the Yes or No Answer trick. When asking for a judgment call, lawyers like to say, "Are you 100% sure". If you say 'Yes', you are perceived as being rigid or over confident. Say 'No' and they take that to be reasonable doubt. This is really a fancy variation on the famous "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.
Answer: Respond with: "I am not 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow morning but based on the fact that it has happened every day for the last million years, there is a very good chance that it will happen." Asking if someone is 100% sure has no informational value.

Dirty the Victim:

It is not uncommon for the defense lawyer to try to raise his/her client's stature and portray the defendant at a similar level as the victim. However, there is a new and disturbing trend to lower the stature of the victim by bringing in to question items that have absolutely no relevance. For example, say someone murders a child. In order to make the defendant appear as some thing other then a child murderer; the defense attorney will bring up life style choices the parents have made as if it was their fault the child was murdered.
Answer: Reply to such questions with "So you are saying your client murdered my child because I am gay?". By repeating the phrase "your client murdered my child" in every answer, demonstrates how stupid this type of question is.

Plan B:

I am not sure if the name is just a Hollywood creation from the TV show, "The Practice" or if it is really a legal term. Basically, since the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, all the defense attorney has to do is to create reasonable doubt. One method is to try to establish as many possible suspects hoping something will stick. The "Plan B" defense is to call a witness, might even be a witness for the defense, thinking he/she is going to testify in support of the defendant. The lawyer will lead the witness down a path and then accuse the witness of the crime. The witness is caught off guard and reacts in anger or disbelief.

Witness for the Prosecution:

In general, a wife that testifies in support of her husband is usually not a credible witness. However, if she testifies against her husband, she is believed. If the defense can later show that she lied, like she wanted him found guilty, then the jury will believe him innocent.

Were you speeding:

Normally, a lawyer can not ask you if you were drunk. It calls for a conclusion. They can ask you the number of drinks and if you NORMALLY drank that much but they can not ask you directly if you were drunk. For some strange reason, they can ask you if you were speeding. If you were traveling down a road and a car pulled out in front of you, it would be their fault. However, if you were traveling 20 miles over the speed limit, that would shift some of the blame to you. Assuming you were going 3 or 4 miles over the speed limit, as determined by skid marks, the other lawyer might ask you if your were speeding. A "Yes" answer could leave the jury with visions of 20 miles over the speed limit. The correct answer is "No" especially if you are restricted to Yes or No answers. The lawyer would counter with "The police report indicates you were traveling 38 in a 35". This immediately helps you because now the actual speed has been introduced but the correct reply is "If you are asking me if 38 is a bigger number than 35, the answer is Yes, if you are asking me if I was speeding, the answer is still No. Most policemen do not write tickets unless you are going 10 miles over the speed limit hense the expression "allowing 9, writing 10". If the police do not consider 3 miles over the speed limit speeding, I don't either.".

Justice?

In the pilot episode of SHARK on CBS (Fall 2006) the lead character states "That winning is the only thing that matters". When asked "What about justice?", the response is "Your job is to win, Justice is God's problem". And I thought the purpose of the legal system was the pursuit of justice. This is exactly why the public opinion of the legal system is so low.