I was recently testifying as an expert in a case for the defense on a large land survey case. During cross examination the opposing attorney tried to get me into a position where my testimony 15 years earlier conflicted with my present testimony. I knew he was misguided, but he made me answer yes to his question, so I decided that I needed to explain that 15 years ago at that trial I was just quoting another expert. As I was getting into about my 5th sentence of explaining it, the opposing attorney stopped me and requested that the judge eliminate all of my response after the word "yes" from the record. The judge struck all of the explanation from the record except "yes" as requested by the attorney. Then the judge looked at me in a threatening manner and said, "The danger of explaining." It scared the hell out of me. I was thinking that if I tried to explain anything else I could get in bad trouble and maybe even reported to the state board. So I immediately told the judge I was sorry and that I would not explain anything else in the case. It severely affected me remaining testimony. Lawyer on our side appeared to be asleep at the wheel and did not even do re-direct to straighten it out. It was a huge case. To me this is an awful thing that I guess is one reason a lot of surveyors like to stay out of court. I am really aggravated by what the judge did.
The ruling on the case was, in my opinion not good either.
Have any of you seen anything like this?
agree your Client's attorney should have objected or at best on subsequent examination, asked you to explain. Certainly the attorney should have established a basis for an appeal and especially if big bucks at stake. Confident attorneys are not afraid to challenge judges. Not much you could have done except to paraphrase the yes. Should your additional testimony be stricken from the record appears to be a question of law. Hopefully there was a court reporter.
Have any of you seen anything like this?
No, but it sounds like you failed to spot the lawyer's trap in enough time to answer it the way you wanted which is probably exactly what the lawyer wanted.
I have seen witnesses limited to yes or no answers. This is more common in cross-examination. A lawyer cannot demand a yes or no answer but he can request the judge to direct you to answer yes or no.
To avoid having to answer yes or no questions, a witness should make his answers responsive to the question asked. If a witness makes vague or evasive answers, or tries to color his answers with information not relative to the question, the judge might direct the witness to answer in a simple form such as a yes or no.
Hindsight is always 20-20, and I hope I'm never in a situation like that, but a truthful answer could have been "Well, not really." If the judge/atty then required a Yes or No, answer No. Then when (if) the atty brings up the prior transcript to make it look like you're lying, you would (may) have the opportunity to explain that it wasn't you saying Yes but you quoting one who did. Ahh, to be perfectly articulate would make us no longer surveyors but maybe great ministers, counselors or philosophers.
I've been in that position, saw the trap the attorney was trying to lay and wouldn't start with a "yes" or "no" when I felt it would be misleading if any clarifying statements were cut off. I would start with the explanation. The attorney got frustrated and asked the judge to direct me to limit my answers to "yes" or "no", which he did.
I responded that if the attorney asked a questioned that could be clearly answered with a "yes" or "no", I would do so. The very next question was one of those that could technically be answered "yes" or "no" but would have paved the way for the attorney to spin a misleading yarn. I turned to the judge, and shrugged with a "what do you want me to do?" look. Judge says "It sounds like a 'yes' or 'no' to me". I say "In the same way that asking 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' is a 'yes' or 'no'."
The judge seemed to consider that for about a second until the frustrated attorney asked the judge to declare me as being non-responsive*, which he did and told the attorney to move on. In that case, the attorney on my client's side was at least as worthless as your client's attorney was, almost to the point that it seemed he was trying to throw the case.
You will never get in trouble for trying to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth or for frustrating either the questioning attorney or the judge while doing so. Your licensing board has no authority and no means to cite or sanction you for frustrating a judge.
As long as you're being truthful, I suggest that when you see the opposing attorney trying to set a yes/no trap, that you start with any qualifying statement that would explain why a simple yes or no may not adequately convey the truth. The worst that can happen is that a frustrated judge directs that your answer be stricken from the record. As frustrating as that may be, some judges really don't like listening to extended technical explanations from experts - their courtroom, their rules. Just roll with it and move on.
If however, you are disrespectful, the judge can hold you in contempt, which again, does not go back to the Board for discipline against your license, but could get you dismissed as an expert in the case, result in a court imposed fine (if very or continually disrespectful) or jail time (if off the charts disrespectful, threatening violence, etc.).
*Non-responsive: I've been declared "non-responsive" as a witness twice. The first time, it really confused me and kind of ticked me off because I most definitely was responding or trying to respond while constantly being cut off by the opposing attorney. I started to ask the judge for an explanation but wisely shut up at a glare from the judge before my first questioning word was fully formed. Again, judge's courtroom, judge's rules. Don't do or say anything that could be construed as disrespecting the judge or their court.
I later learned that "non-responsive" can mean that, as a witness, you refuse to answer a question, or as in both cases it was applied to me, I wasn't going to answer a question in the manner that the opposing attorney wanted me to (one time was a yes/no demand, the other was about whether placing a lath and hanging flagging in the vicinity of a corner monument was notifying the landowners of the monuments presence - perhaps a good question for another thread). The second time I was declared non-responsive didn't really phase me.