MY ART OF CROSS-EXAMINATION: CRACKING A TOUGH FALSE NUT
MY ART OF
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
CRACKING A
TOUGH FALSE NUT
THIS MORNING, JUNE 13, 2013, AT RTC GENERAL SANTOS CITY, I AM HAPPY TO HAVE CRACKED THE NUT OF A FALSE WITNESS TO A MURDER.
As I always believe, I always conduct extensive cross-examination of a
witness without any fear that the accusation would be bolstered.
As I did this morning, I consumed a good two hours cross-examining a
false witness, stopping only when I saw the clock was at 12 o'clock. I was ashamed to myself because other than my
two clients charged with murder there were about 16 other persons in BJMP
yellow shirts and handcuffs whose hearings for this day (June 13, 2013) were
cancelled because there was no more time time.
But it was not at all sad for the other men in yellow because I saw them
enjoying, reacting, and watching intently with bated breath every question I
would utter and every answer that the false witness would respond.
I felt I cracked the nut of this false witness because in all his
answers, he would take too long to answer simple questions.
I drew first blood when my
question packaged in another manner, "Why did you know it was the murder
victim who was groaning?" The answer was: "I failed to get
sleep."
This was a bull's eye because in his judicial affidavit the false witness
said he was awakened by the groaning sound.
If he was awakened, it means to say he should be asleep first so that he
was awakened.
Then I pounced on, thinking that if he was after all awake he should know
what happened before and during the stabbing incident.
I asked the witness what was the first event that he saw of the victim
during or before the stabbing incident.
His answer to this as written in his judicial-affidavit was that he saw
the victim being held by my client while being stabbed on the neck by my other
client. But during this cross-question,
the witness said he saw the victim already wounded. When I asked him to clarify again, he changed
his answer that he saw the victim already wounded and being stabbed again. These are damaging to the cause of the
prosecution because the medical certificate showed that the murder victim only
had one injury.
Then I asked him what acts were done by the victim that he saw prior to
the time seeing the victim being stabbed and he said he did not see. I also asked him what he saw of the accused
moments or seconds before the stabbing and he said none. Then I followed up
that since he said he was after all awake, since when he was at his position in
terms of hours and he said that from 10:00 p.m. of September 29, 2012 he was
already there and he stayed there until 2:00 to 3:00 a.m. of September 30,
2012, what really did he see moments prior to the time seeing the victim already in wound or seeing the victim being stabbed, to which he took a long time thinking about how to answer. WITH THIS THAT HE WAS AWAKE AFTER ALL, it was impossible for him to have
not seen the incident. So that he was lying when he said he did not see what were done by the victim and the
accused moments or minutes before the stabbing.
Then I asked the false witness to explain why it took him to come out to
testify only on January 20, 2013 when he witnessed the killing incident on
September 30, 2012. He answered that he
got sick and admitted to a hospital on October 9, 2012. I followed up that what did he do from
September 30, 2012 up to October 8, 2012 when he did not execute any affidavit
on the murder, to which he did not have a clear answer. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LACK OF CONVINCING
EXPLANATION WHY HE DID NOT COME OUT IMMEDIATELY MEANS THAT HE WAS NOT AFTER ALL
TELLING THE TRUTH.
Towards the end of the cross-examination, I asked the false witness when
did he see the accused for the first time after the stabbing incident. He
answered, a week later. I also asked if
he saw the witness the second time after that and he said he saw the accused
for the second time a week later and the third time another week later. I asked
him what were the accused doing when he saw them and the witness said the
accused were doing their jobs but he cannot say what jobs, welding or
otherwise, considering that the accused have been all expert welders in ship
repairs.
Then I asked him if he visited the wake of the victim and he said yes and
it was on the day the victim was buried.
I asked him if he saw the accused there and he said he saw the accused
during the burial and the accused were doing things like what other mourners
were doing.
The fact that the accused even attended the burial and were never running
away means they were not guilty.
There were other questions with big impact in favor of my clients. But generally, they tended to prove our
theory.
Comments