3 ms·

The reason is that if you've done your job so far, you have communicated the answer to that last unanswered question, and asking it is therefore high risk and l

The reason is that if you've done your job so far, you have communicated the answer to that last unanswered question, and asking it is therefore high risk and low reward. The risk is that the witness will flat out deny what they had essentially already admitted to, getting you tangled in rehashing things or else unable to actually prove your point. More interestingly, the reward is often negative even when that doesn't happen, because it deprives the finder of fact (the judge or jury) of the opportunity to put the pieces together and draw your conclusion with an "aha!" moment and the feeling that the conclusion is their own.

wutbrodo 10y ago
> More interestingly, the reward is often negative even when that doesn't happen, because it deprives the finder of fact (the judge or jury) of the opportunity to put the pieces together and draw your conclusion with an "aha!" moment and the feeling that the conclusion is their own. The risk argument makes a lot of sense to me, but this part seems to be putting a lot of faith in the competence of a jury of your peers.
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  Well, we do put a lot of faith in them, in most criminal cases. More than that. And you can always come back to it in closing arguments to put the pieces together explicitly.
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    I've always imagined the jury system as being the least of all evils, not an expression of faith in the decency and competence of your fellow citizen. It's the same thing with Churchill's famous quote about democracy: just because it's better than all the alternatives doesn't mean that voters have to be even attempt to be remotely reasonable. I'd imagine that this "last question" guideline exists because of the experience of trial lawyers, so I'm certainly not saying it's wrong. I was just surprised that that's the way it shakes out. The closing argument thing does make sense, but that seems like it would also deprive the jury of the opportunity to piece it together themselves.
- azakai 10y ago
  I assume the lawyer would spell it all out in closing arguments. The difference is that at that time the lawyer can comment and interpret, and there isn't a witness that might respond unpredictably.

wutbrodo 10y ago

> More interestingly, the reward is often negative even when that doesn't happen, because it deprives the finder of fact (the judge or jury) of the opportunity to put the pieces together and draw your conclusion with an "aha!" moment and the feeling that the conclusion is their own. The risk argument makes a lot of sense to me, but this part seems to be putting a lot of faith in the competence of a jury of your peers.

GavinMcG 10y ago
Well, we do put a lot of faith in them, in most criminal cases. More than that. And you can always come back to it in closing arguments to put the pieces together explicitly.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  I've always imagined the jury system as being the least of all evils, not an expression of faith in the decency and competence of your fellow citizen. It's the same thing with Churchill's famous quote about democracy: just because it's better than all the alternatives doesn't mean that voters have to be even attempt to be remotely reasonable. I'd imagine that this "last question" guideline exists because of the experience of trial lawyers, so I'm certainly not saying it's wrong. I was just surprised that that's the way it shakes out. The closing argument thing does make sense, but that seems like it would also deprive the jury of the opportunity to piece it together themselves.
azakai 10y ago
I assume the lawyer would spell it all out in closing arguments. The difference is that at that time the lawyer can comment and interpret, and there isn't a witness that might respond unpredictably.