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.