I agree with everything you said except the last bit I bolded. When testifying it is very important to ensure that you truly say what you mean. In day to day conversation it isn't as important and people fill in the blanks themselves or understand what you mean to say. But if you aren't perfectly clear in testimony, especially with Juan, it WILL come back to bite you. So while Juan WANTS a yes or no answer, sometimes a question cannot be Properly answered with a yes or no. For example, the "did you use this continuum to identify domestic violence in this case, yes or no." I understand why she did bot want to give in and wanted to give a proper answer to that.
At points she was totally rude and WAS just sparring for the sake of being difficult, but at times Juan does make it difficult to give an accurate answer.
I agree with the slippery slope that might ensue from answering a closed question that requires elaboration, but it would be easier to accept if you aren't trying to argue
every yes or no question. That's simply obfuscation,no matter how you rationalize it. When Juan asks, "Isn't that one of your main tools," that is an obviously simple yes or no question. It does not commit you to saying "it
is my main tool," but that is exactly how she tried to justify her unwillingness to answer. There's only one of two ways to see that. She either isn't listening to the question carefully, or she is intentionally being obtuse to avoid answering. The latter is most likely given her later responses.
Recall that at a certain point she mentions that she does "not know what he is trying to say," and other statements in a similar vein. This statement is not consistent with active listening. What she is obviously doing is attempting to stay
ahead of the prosecutor and prepare her answers -- or her obstruction to those answers -- appropriately. Given the painful results, it is clear she does not think fast enough to be able to play that game with this particular person. In any event, that is not what she is there for. She should simply answer the questions to the best of her ability as the so-called "expert" she purports to be.
A professional would recognize that there may be alternatives to his or her conclusions. The fact that she is unwilling to acknowledge even the slightest possibility of her fallibility is telling and does not speak well for her.
Finally, even if a simple yes or no answer would be insufficient owing to a need for further elaboration, she could simply state that as she answered. We saw that several times with Dr. Samuels. He tried similar tactics with JM, but realized at some point that it was easier for him to simply say, "I would say yes, but I would need to elaborate." JM can either allow that or not depending. If it's of earth-shattering importance, it will be up to the defense to handle it on redirect.
I understand what you're saying about JM attempting to engineer people into a tight box with some of the questioning -- but he doesn't do it with
every question. The problem, in my view, is that when witnesses like these are
trying to guess his strategy rather than simply answering, they become constantly obfuscative and combative. If they would choose their battles more wisely -- such as in the instances you've highlighted here, where a closed answer would be inadequate -- the jury would view them much more favorably in my estimation.
:cow:
