SET THE TRAP IN FIVE MINUTES. SPRING IT IN TEN. OTHERWISE LET THE WITNESS GO.

              Incessant cross-examination is counter-productive.

   Read a Rod Laver quote, last night, during the Australian Open. It said that the dangerous time is when you are on top. You have to keep going. Turned out to be true. Thiem, up 2 sets-to-1, lost the match. Becker had predicted that Thiem would run out of gas.

   The Sun Tzu way of war. Everyone has a weak spot, an Achilles’ heel. Aim for that while cross-examination. Do not try to show off how clever you are. In fact, act weak; let the witness think he is winning. Keep him off guard. A cocky witness is ideal for you.

   It is best to forestudy the witness and his habits. Imbalance pays rich dividends. One of the best lawyers in the business was Vijay Tulpule. He would tell the witness the number of questions he would ask, and at what question Tulpule would get the answer he wanted. This would keep the witness counting the questions, rather than paying attention to his answers!

    He and I would play out an examination in advance, looking at the possible variations, searching for avenues to probe. His favourite book was Wellman on Cross Examination. It's a good read to start with. Had discussed with him a course for young advocates. It would entail court craft, both in civil matters and crime laws. But it was too late in the day. He passed away two years ago.  

   Same with another great, Girish Desai. Always a pleasure to watch him in action. Am sure both are arguing away in the great blue yonder. And winning.         

   Their tips: Never ask a question, a possible answer for which, you do not want. Ask only those questions that lead up to the answers you really need. Be prepared for the twists and turns. Be mentally agile. Wound with a rapier. Finish off with a scimitar. And never go on and on if you cannot get what you want to hear. That can be your worst mistake. One thing I have learnt. An angry witness is one's best bet. The more riled the better. They blurt out things that you never imagined even existed. Eg., Jack Nicholson in 'A Few Good Men'.

   Of course, if you have more than one trap, go on.

   A lot of advocates make a list of questions for cross-examination. And rattle them out. Do you think it works?