Hey Reader,

Steve and I used to live smack in the middle of Old Town San Diego.

Pros: The smell of carne asada burritos every morning.
Cons: Eating carne asada burritos every morning.

That's when I took up yoga.

Restaurants and coffee shops came and went all the time.

After a while, we started noticing the same thing happened right before one was about to close:

The signs multiply.

Fresh Pastries.
Ice Cold Coffee.
Craft Beer.
Banners.
Bunting.
Arrows pointing THIS WAY.

On. Every. Inch. Of. Space.

Every sign had a purpose.
The problem was they were all competing for the same attention.
And instead of noticing the croissants…I noticed the signs.

We see the same thing happen in deposition and cross-examination questions.

An extra clause.
Three facts bundled together.
Tags like "Would you agree?” or "Is it fair to say?"

Every one of them competes with the one thing you actually need the witness (or jury) to focus on.

And adding more doesn't make people notice more.
It gives them more to ignore.

Here's a real question from a transcript we reviewed:

The witness has to process:

• cervical spine
• degenerative disc disease
• possible OPLL
• examination
• image review
• whether they want to agree
• and causation

That's a lot of competition for one admission.

Every extra clause gives the witness another place to think, qualify, or push back.
And in the rest of the transcript, they did.

We’d write it like this instead:

Q: You diagnosed degenerative disc disease? YES.

Q: You believed she likely had OPLL? YES.

Q: A car accident could exacerbate those conditions? YES.

One fact.
One question.
One admission.

That's a much cleaner window for everyone looking through it.

A clean, one fact, no tag question is the hardest one for a witness to escape.
And for a jury to get lost in.

Your less-is-more trial consultants,

P.S. We edit just as much as we write. That's one of the reasons our deposition outlines work.

➡️ [Schedule a strategy session with us here]​