The trial lawyer must master the fundamental aspects that regulate the practice and operation in the different stages of the trial, but it is not enough just to have this knowledge. The interrogation, for example, is one of the essential phases of the trial that can determine the final tone of the trial.

In this first analysis we focus on the elements prior to the execution of the interrogation, i.e., the preparation of the interrogation and the possible results it may have.


One of the most common tonics of any partner when approaching an interrogation or cross-examination is the preparation of a list, probably infinite, of questions to be asked on the spot. In this general list, thought out and prepared, all the questions that could be asked according to the tone of the interrogation are included. Here is where we find a crucial flaw, and that is not understanding the interrogation as a labyrinth through which we must guide the witness, marking at all times where he must go with his answers, so that he leaves the labyrinth through the exit that best suits us or is closest to it.

While it is true that the list generates tranquility and security in the preparation and during the execution of the interrogation, it is still an unhelpful obsession that represents a real deterioration in the quality of the interrogation. This is clear in the execution of the interrogation, due to the fact that the list of questions generates a tunnel effect that leads to the loss of opportunities such as the introduction of clarifications, concretions or emphasis of essential information.

The concentration and follow-up on the list of questions, in most cases, leads to a deconcentration of the witness’s response, loss of spontaneity and freshness of the interrogation, anticipation and ability to intervene with full concentration in the face of any unforeseen event. Reasons enough to cause a tacit reversal of the tone of control of the interrogation, with the witness himself taking the wheel of the situation in the face of a noticeable tranquility and comfort on his part.

On the other hand, loss of spontaneity and freshness, in addition to the lack of rhythm and speed, which should be fast during the execution, are affected since pauses are inevitably generated between questions for our own location, which are not at all advisable and have a direct impact on SSª, which can translate into a weariness whose result, we already know.


Aware of the possible outcomes that can be obtained from an obstinacy in a list whose preparation is not discussed but its execution, it is convenient and appropriate to understand the case as a conscientious reality and with sufficient perspective to get to know all the resources that can be squeezed out of it. In this way, assuming the case as an imminent reality and approached from different perspectives and flanks, we will understand that each witness can bring a new reality to the case that we must make converge with our interests.

Therefore, after preparation and being understood as a whole, the questions to be asked will emerge by themselves and will be clear at the moment of the execution of the interrogation. This does not mean that a guide, not a list, should not be elaborated as an itinerary and support according to the needs and requirements of each case and each interrogation.



Gonzalo Nuevo López 
Abogado- Attorney

Datos de contacto
 + 34 660 938 836

Reclamaciones bancarias
Responsabilidad civil
Hola! soy tu paralegal :)
¿Qué podemos hacer por ti?