Q&A with Larry Pozner: Inside the Chapter Method

Your “Chapter Method” has become a go-to approach worldwide. What makes it so effective in real trials?

The Chapter Method aligns with how facts come together in logical groups that make important points. We are interested in creating meaning, not in the volume of facts we can prove. Chapters are stories, and stories are how people learn facts and make decisions. The most important work of the cross examiner is the pretrial building of the chapters. Our work makes it far easier for the factfinder to understand the meaning of the stories.

By teaching the case through stories of logically regaled facts, we reduce the cognitive load on the fact finder and thereby enable the fact finder to stay engaged with our presentation.

How does storytelling fit into cross-examination, and what’s the difference between telling a story in submissions versus telling it through a witness?

A Storytelling works in cross examination for several reasons. Fact-finders do not evaluate facts individually. Instead, people believe or disbelieve based on an aggregation of facts. One chapter or story will not carry the day. It is an accumulation of linked stories that makes a point and drives the inference we desire.

What does it mean to build “chapters” with factual goals, and how does that keep a cross-examination on track?

When we are in the office preparing our cross examinations , we group related facts with the goal of not simply proving those facts, but of causing the fact finder to draw the logical and desired inference. Won the chapter page form we have adopted, we list the facts we intend to use to drive the desired inference. Our written questions serve as our roadmap and allow us, under pressure, to stay focused on gaining admissions to the facts we need.

What is “asymmetric cross-examination”, and how can lawyers use it to keep the judge or jury focused on the issues that matter most?

Old style cross was largely symmetrical. It focused on dealing with whatever the witness had said in their examination- in- chief. Asymmetric cross expands the purposes of cross by using cross to make points in areas not covered or inadequately covered in the examination in chief. We are using the witness to tell our stories. We are teaching our case not just rebutting the opponent’s case.

How can advocates use the opponent’s witness to tell their story, without taking unnecessary risks?

We use the opponents witness to admit facts of our choice. We do not use cross examination as the time to explore the unknown. Our cross examinations build on facts we do know , perhaps because we found those faxing discovery, perhaps, because our client needed them to us, or possibly because our own investigation revealed those facts .

The greatest risks come from asking n opponent’s a witness to admit a subjective inference. We leave the inferences for the fact finder. Instead, we confine our questions

When it comes to leading questions, what separates a good leading question from a great one?

The cross examiner is given one advantage – the right to ask leading questions.
In cross-examination, we, Not the witness, or the teacher. A leading question asserts the answer. It teaches upon being spoken. The great leading question is short and unambiguous. It does not invite misunderstanding or evasion or a narrative reply. It tells a witness “I know a fact, and I know that you know that fact. “. It thereby positions to witness to honestly and briefly answer the question. “Yes“ is the preferred answer. So the question should be phrased so that Yes fully answers the question.

You teach three rules of question structure. Why is structure so critical to controlling the witness and limiting the opportunity to evade?

Our leading questions have three characteristics. (1) they assert a fact . (2) the question asserts only one new fact. (3)The facts asserted in the group of questions are logically linked. The question sounds as a statement. It conveys her confidence, and it is so short and pointed that it does not invite a narrative answer. It calls for a simple, affirmation or denial.

How do you recommend lawyers handle the most difficult witnesses, the evasive ones, the talkative ones, or the overly confident ones?

When a witness evades our question, it is likely because they know the answer hurts their side of the case. Our best response is to calmly, and in the same voice, reason the identical question. Because our questions are leading and contain only one new fact, the witness’s evasion is apparent. Very few witnesses are willing to evade a third asking of the question. On the rare occasions when that happens, you may elect to not ask again, as the fact finder will logically conclude that if the fact could be denied, the witness will have done so.
Regardless of the form of the evasion, we must never show that we are disturbed by the evasion. Our best response is to stay on track within the chapter we have begun.

Impeachment can feel intimidating for many advocates. What’s the fastest way to make impeachment feel simple and methodical?

There are many forms of impeachment, but all are best handled in a voice that is matter of fact. We need not display anger or sarcasm, and we never want to ask for an explanation of why a story has changed.
Impeachment needs to be handled efficiently. We must know what document we need to show the witness, and we need to find it with no effort. We want the factfinder to understand the impeachment, so we should not rush through it. Having impeached the witness we continue the questions in that chapter. We want the witness to understand that kthe act of impeachment is not difficult for us. We want the factfinder to understand that we are well prepared and that we will get to the truth even if the witness does not cooperate.