TNP Shawn, are you going to let me take the blame for the game that you set up? That’s just . . . ruthless.

But I agree with you SHG, we can be all things depending on the circumstances. Which of course is another way of say Mark is completely wrong! (Just kidding Mark)

Be tough when you need to be. Be gentle when you need to be. And be whatever else you need to be when you need to be it.

Now let’s stop all this foolishness. Alright, Ruthless Shawn and Empathetic Mark?

At the risk of sounding like a sycophant, I cannot agree with you more on the need for compassion in the whole art of lawyering.

We can be convinced that the opposing witness is a lying sack of sh**; however, if we proceed on the take no prisoners approach, we may miss that the person appears sincere to the jury. We may treat with badly a witness that ultimately appears to the jury as a neutral or positive figure.

If instead of viewing them as a lying sack of sh**, we instead view them as “confused” or “mistaken” then we can cross examine them in a gentle but effective manner that will ultimately serve our clients.

There is no “me” in the jury trial, there are only the facts and my client.

Luchese or Gambino? Gambino

Charles’ example is testament to two basic emotions that often lead to lying – fear (of lying and/or telling the truth) and revenge (hurting, and wanting someone else to hurt at least as much). While preparation is always important, pairing it with an empathic approach offers an avenue to elicit something truly devastating – an admission of deceit.

Victims, defendants, and witnesses all want to be understood and believed, and that desire is even greater when one has the additional burden of selling a lie. Under that pressure, attacking only raises the psychological price of getting caught and practically ensures a defensive response. An empathic approach is easily perceived as reasonable and nonthreatening to all, and usually leads the liar to alter his demeanor and drop his guard.

What can be accomplished? Perhaps an opportunity to determine the emotional locus of the lie and to gather additional information (since, at this point, the liar is still a salesman). Perhaps it eases pressure, allowing the liar to rationalize and begin seeing himself as a good and decent person. Perhaps it then creates an opportunity for the prepared lawyer to manipulate the liar’s basic emotions by underscoring dissonance – forcing the liar to confront the difference and choose between being seen as a common liar or as a good person who made a mistake (i.e., the politics of youthful indiscretion).

When empathy works, it works to great effect. If not, you still can be ruthless.