Don't heed Hollywood.

In the March TRIAL, Ashley Saunders Lipson promises us Hollywood's Great Lessons in Cross-Examination. The article provides several cross-examination excerpts from the movies, most of which are examples of poor technique. The author concludes that "Hollywood is a much better teacher" than those of us who could compile our own lists of cross-examination tips, because "Hollywood shows us how to do it."

This was an embarrassing fluff piece far below the normal high standards of this journal. The carefully scripted cross-examinations found in most Hollywood movies are, for the most part, filled with examples of bad technique; questions in the form of long, argumentative speeches; opponents who conveniently fail to object; and witnesses who crumble on cue. Far from providing "great lessons," Hollywood more often shows us how not to do it.

One movie Lipson cites, My Cousin Vinny, does feature some scenes of effective cross-examination. Proving himself an adept cross-examiner; Vinny dismantles the prosecution's case by discrediting each eyewitness. What's instructive is the variety of approaches he uses:

* We see Vinny use a courtroom demonstration to prove the failing eyesight of an older woman. Then he gently prods her to concede that "maybe it's time for a new pair of glasses."

* Using photos he has taken, Vinny gets another eyewitness to acknowledge the presence of foliage and other objects that significantly impaired his view. Vinny's technique is excellent: He asks about each item separately, then runs them all together in a single question that makes the sum of the parts seem much larger than the whole.

* We also see Vinny draw out minute factual details about the timing of another witness's claimed observations. After getting the witness to firmly commit to aversion of events, he shows that the claim is impossible, because the witness was cooking grits, "and everybody knows grits don't get cooked in just five minutes." (The jurors nod their agreement.) Vinny then drives the point home by asking, "Were these special, fast-cooking grits?" By gently making fun of the witness, he risks antagonizing the jurors, but by then they are solidly with him, for the witness is clearly mistaken.

The exchange is interesting from another standpoint as well: Vinny had only recently acquired knowledge regarding the cooking of grits, in an earlier scene. There was nothing to suggest that this knowledge would later become useful. We see how a great cross-examiner will acquire a vast mental storehouse of seemingly insignificant knowledge and bring it to bear during cross.

Vinny treats each witness with an appropriate degree of respect. He does not argue with them, berate them, or treat them condescendingly. He does show they were mistaken because they lacked adequate facility to perceive events accurately.

Strangely, rather than analyzing Vinny's excellent cross-examinations, Lipson highlights the defense counsel's cross as an example of what not to do. The ineptitude of this cross was so obvious I'm surprised it was worth mentioning. It is hardly a useful teaching point for budding trial lawyers.

I'd prefer to get my great lessons in cross-examination from real trial lawyers, drawing on their real courtroom experiences. Although I love the entertainment that movies provide, I cringe at the thought that anyone would seriously consider them a good source of examples for learning our craft.

Wes Wagnon

Oakland, California 

The author responds:

Surely Mr. Wagnon wouldn't advocate Vinny's cross-examination "style" (along with the expletives) over that of a Tracy or a Stewart! But I do feel his pain, particularly over the space limits to which all articles must adhere. I, too, felt the lash and sting of having to omit the grits scene. Oh, the passion of the Vinny!