Hello Erik! Before I ask my question, I would like to say thank you for what you do and for taking time out of your day to educate others, especially LEO's. It is greatly appreciated. I mistakenly found your RU-vid content searching for case briefings for a college course I am currently taking, and I must say, I found your content intriguing and refreshing. I will be following your content in the future. Now for my question. When answering questions from the defense attorney, is it okay to elaborate the yes or no questions, or should I just answer with a yes or no? I know a lot of defense attorneys ask yes or no questions that sometimes make LEO’s look like they did something wrong, when in fact they did not. Like the did you have a warrant example you used in this video. Would I answer “No, I did not have a warrant, but in this situation, a warrant was not needed”, or should I just say no and hope the prosecutor cross-examined and asked me the same set of questions so I can clarify why a warrant wasn’t needed? I think you answered this question, but I just want to clarify I understood it correctly. Thank you in advance!
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Your analysis is pretty spot on. The absolute key during cross examination is to listen to the question. So many officers just answer the questions like they are in a daze. It's ok to answer simply yes or no, you have to trust your prosecutor to a certain extent. But the key is to watch for those partially true and partially false questions that they want you to agree with the whole premise. In those circumstances, it's ok to simply state something to the effect of "that's not exactly true." I plan on doing a few more of these court room testimony videos, it's massively important. Thanks for the support! I hope I helped clarify a little.
Forget giving credibility to your testimony. First and foremost, officer, testify truthfully. For example, officer, if you commit an illegal search and seizure don't lie and tell the court that you saw the evidence in plain view. Oh, rest assured that if you do lie, the judge will turn a blind eye and pretend that you are telling the truth, but you will have broken the Ninth Commandment. But worry not. The end justifies the means. And, your lie will become just another lie in the biggest open secret in jurisprudence. Police perjure themselves every day in America! Furthermore, in an exclusionary rule hearing, there is no jury. The judge will likely know that you are lying, but he will admire you for it and admit the evidence. On, and by the way, if you happen to find evidence that is favorable to the defendant, feel free to hide it. If you get caught, the defendant may get a new trial, but nothing ever happens to the police officer.
