![Bart Williams of Proskauer Rose. Courtesy photo](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2020/09/Bart-Williams-Article-202009181510.jpg)
'Same Question, Different Answer': The One Courtroom Tool You Should be Using, But Probably Aren't
Impeach a witness on matters that are not trivial when you know you can.
September 18, 2020 at 12:59 PM
11 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Litigation Daily
Impeachment. It's one of the most powerful things an attorney can do in the courtroom, and yet so few lawyers do it. Perhaps it's due to trepidation about the mechanics of impeachment. Or maybe lawyers are worried that the time it takes to impeach a witness will create unwanted delay in a courtroom full of impatient jurors. Maybe lawyers shy away from it because of this familiar scene: A lawyer begins to impeach, and the first thing opposing counsel says is that they can't find the transcript. Then they can't find the proper page. Then they need more time to read the excerpt. Then they say, "Your Honor, this isn't proper impeachment!" even if the previous testimony directly contradicts what the witness just said on the stand. By the time the witness is actually confronted with the prior testimony, the jury may have forgotten the question. Whatever the reason, I've noticed that many lawyers—even very good lawyers—just don't seize the opportunity to impeach a witness even when they have the ammunition to do so.
Here's my advice: Impeach the witness on matters that are not trivial when you know you can.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2022/05/Allison-Jones-Rushing-2021-006-767x633.jpg)
Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense
5 minute read![Hogan Lovells, Jenner & Block Challenge Trump EOs Impacting Gender-Affirming Care Hogan Lovells, Jenner & Block Challenge Trump EOs Impacting Gender-Affirming Care](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2024/06/The-White-House-Building-2-767x633.jpg)
Hogan Lovells, Jenner & Block Challenge Trump EOs Impacting Gender-Affirming Care
3 minute read![Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2024/03/Apple-computer-sign-767x633.jpg)
Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute read![Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2023/10/US-Department-of-Justice-Building-2022-006-767x633-5.jpg)
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 2Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
- 3'Intrusive' Parental Supervision Orders Are Illegal, NY Appeals Court Says
- 4Federal Laws Also Preempt State's Swipe Fee Law on Out-of-State Banks, Judge Rules
- 5Judge Grills DOJ on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250