CDF Cross-Examiners, Welcome to the CLE Program:

Recognizing & Crafting 26 “W Is A Deceiver!!” Arguments,
Taught – Primarily – By A Brilliant(??) Analysis Of Key
Q&A From The All-Time #1 Cross-Examination

In every case, no matter the area of law, litigators attack – skillfully or otherwise – the credibility of their opponent’s evidence: a fact-witness’s observations; an expert’s opinion, a document, and/or real evidence.  The ability to recognize and craft credibility arguments is crucial to successful litigation, yet few [any?] law schools or law firms teach it. This presentation does, using video clips from the watched-by-tens-of-millions cross-examination conducted by legendary trial attorney F. Lee Bailey of Los Angeles police detective Mark [“I Found the Murderer’s Glove at O. J. Simpson’s Home”] Fuhrman.  Measured by publicity and viewership, State of California vs. O. J. Simpson was rightly deemed the trial of the 20th century (and, thus far, the 21st’s), and Bailey’s 3-day Q&A of Fuhrman was THE centerpiece of that trial.

[Note: This webpage expires on May 12, 2023.]

Written Materials

Four Videos

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four

To illustrate the teaching points (and make them entertaining?), the program uses video clips from the preliminary hearing (in effect, deposition cross-examinations) in the case of the State of California vs. O. J. Simpson and video clips from the watched-live-by-tens-of-millions trial cross-examination conducted by legendary trial attorney F. Lee Bailey of smart, trial-tested, poised Los Angeles Police Detective Mark [“I Found the Murderer’s Glove at O. J. Simpson’s Home”] Fuhrman.*  While the country’s news media invariably referred to the Simpson case as the trial of the 20th century, based on the gargantuan amount of publicity and audience size it garnered, it’s gotta be the All-Time #1 trial … and Bailey’s 3-day Q&A of Fuhrman, as the centerpiece of that trial, the All-Time #1 cross-examination, right? [Notice the leading question.]

*In the words of one esteemed legal scholar: “As long as lawyers are allowed to cross-examine witnesses, they will look to the questions Bailey put to Detective Mark Fuhrman as examples to emulate.”

Part 1 Agenda

For 7 days prior to the live-only presentation of Part 2, each attorney will have “watch-at-their-convenience” access to 3+ hours of videos (recorded September 2023) that teach the below.

  • In Musante We Trust (Yes!)
  • Mt. Rushmore of teaching points:
    – Trial is argument
    – Deposition is trial
    – Deposition is argument
  • Paramount goal of every deposition Q
  • If Musante were your deposition mentor …
  • Saving impeachment for trial surprise
  • CE’s goals re cross-examination
  • Witness’s goals re cross-examination
  • Simpson case facts
    – Intro of Mark Fuhrman & F. Lee Bailey
  • Discovering – & memorializing – witness’s story: indispensable
  • Forcing witness to answer “Yes”
  • Fragmentary vs. interrogatory-like Q
  • Universal Q-terms & enumeration
  • Summary & looping
  • Q&A clarity: the friend of CE
    – Non-clarity: the friend of witness & OA
  • Work-Hawking: a crucial skill
  • In-depth (i.e., 60 minutes) analysis re 16 of Bailey & Fuhrman’s Q&A
    – Only 3 valid answers to a yes/no Q
    – CE’s risk re yes-maybe & no-maybe
    – Leading Qs: trial vs. deposition
    – The tell-the-truth-or-one-hellava-clear lie Q
  • Liar vs. deceiver
  • Trial cross-examination: the cherry-picked modules of deposition Q&A
  • Videotaping adverse depositions
  • The “argumentative” objection
  • Intro re 26 “Witness is a deceiver!!” arguments

    CE = cross-examiner
    OA = opposing attorney

Part 2 Agenda

A live-only (i.e., not recorded) Zoom presentation: 3.25 to 4+ hours teaching time, exclusive of breaks & unlimited question time. All questions re Part 1 addressed before Part 2 begins.

  • The “nobody’s perfect” cover story
  • Witness’s “virtuous” admission of a deception-flaw
  • Key axioms: Aristotle & John Locke
  • Witness’s implausible claim re knowledge, motivation, & decision
  • Witness’s implausible claim re a practice
  • Witness’s claim re dissimilar responses to “similar” situations
  • Witness’s implausible claim re knowledge
  • Witness’s implausible claim re motivation
  • Witness’s implausible claim re feelings
  • Witness’s implausible claim re info considered
  • Witness’s implausible claim re reasoning
  • Maximize arguments: lead, rhetoricate, & reason
  • Witness’s implausible claim re not remembering*
  • Witness’s implausible claim re remembering*
  • Witness’s implausible claim re perceiving info
  • Witness’s implausible claim re understanding info
  • Witness’s implausible characterization
  • Witness’s failing the “good citizenship test”
  • Witness’s inharmonious claims
  • Witness’s admission or implausible denial re motive to deceive
  • Witness’s claim contradicted by an external-source
  • Witness’s claim not corroborated an external-source
  • Witness corrupted another witness, a document, or real evidence
  • Witness’s question-dodging
  • Witness’s “curious” testimonial behavior
  • Witness’s implausible claim re skill or ineptitude
  • Witness’s implausible claim re luck or coincidence
  • Falsis in unam, falsis in omnibus

    *Teaching how best to attack deceptive “remembering” claims deserves far! more time than this program allows (an extra 180+ minutes would be nice). Thus only a few tips are discussed. Sorry.