Legal Definitions - argumentative

In a legal context, a question is considered argumentative when an attorney asks it not to elicit new factual information from a witness, but rather to challenge the witness's testimony, persuade the jury, or present the attorney's own interpretation or conclusion about the evidence. Such questions are generally objectionable because they can force a witness into a debate with the attorney, invade the jury's role in drawing conclusions from the evidence, or unfairly badger the witness.

Here are some examples illustrating an argumentative question:

• Example 1: Challenging a Witness's Perception

  An attorney asks a witness, "You expect us to believe you didn't notice the flashing emergency lights, even though you were looking directly at the scene of the accident?"

  Explanation: This question is argumentative because it doesn't seek new information about what the witness saw. Instead, the attorney is challenging the credibility and plausibility of the witness's statement by implying that it defies common sense. The attorney is essentially making an argument to the jury about the witness's lack of observation, rather than asking for further details about their perception.

• Example 2: Forcing Agreement with an Attorney's Conclusion

  During cross-examination, an attorney states, "So, despite all the inconsistencies in your story and the clear evidence of your financial motive, you still maintain you had no involvement in the theft?"

  Explanation: This question is argumentative because the attorney is summarizing their interpretation of the evidence (inconsistencies, financial motive) and using it to challenge the witness's denial. The question is designed to highlight the attorney's conclusion for the jury and force the witness to either agree with the attorney's negative characterization or engage in a defensive argument, rather than simply providing factual testimony.

• Example 3: Implying Negligence Through a Rhetorical Question

  An attorney asks a defendant, "Isn't it true that a reasonably prudent person would have inspected that machinery daily, not just once a month, given the potential for serious injury?"

  Explanation: This question is argumentative because it introduces the attorney's opinion of what a "reasonably prudent person" would do and uses it to criticize the defendant's actions. It's not asking for information about *what* the defendant did or why, but rather making an argument that the defendant's conduct fell below an implied standard of care, thereby attempting to persuade the jury of negligence.