Legal Definitions - argumentative question

An argumentative question is a type of question asked during a legal proceeding, such as a trial or deposition, that does more than simply seek factual information from a witness. Instead, it subtly or overtly introduces the questioner's own argument, interpretation of facts, or conclusion, often challenging the witness or attempting to persuade the jury through the question itself, rather than through the witness's answer.

Such questions are considered improper because they turn the questioning into a debate or an attempt to present an argument, rather than an objective search for evidence. They can also force a witness to agree with a premise that has not been established or is disputed.

Here are some examples:

• Example 1 (Courtroom Cross-Examination): Imagine a defense attorney cross-examining a police officer about an arrest. The attorney asks, "Officer, isn't it true that you only arrested my client because you were under immense pressure to close this case quickly, not because you had any solid evidence?"

  Explanation: This is an argumentative question because it's not merely asking for a fact. It interjects the attorney's own argument—that the officer was pressured and lacked evidence—and forces the officer to respond to that negative interpretation of their actions, rather than just stating what they observed or did.

• Example 2 (Prosecutor's Questioning): During a trial, a prosecutor is questioning a defendant who claims they acted in self-defense. The prosecutor asks, "So, after you deliberately escalated the situation by shouting threats, you expect the jury to believe you were merely defending yourself?"

  Explanation: Here, the prosecutor's question includes an unproven assertion ("you deliberately escalated the situation") and challenges the defendant's credibility based on that assertion. It's an argument disguised as a question, aiming to influence the jury's perception rather than elicit new factual testimony.

• Example 3 (Deposition of an Expert Witness): In a deposition, an attorney is questioning an expert witness who has provided an opinion on the cause of a building collapse. The attorney asks, "Given your extensive experience, wouldn't a truly competent structural engineer have identified these critical design flaws long before the building ever showed signs of stress, rather than missing such obvious warning signs?"

  Explanation: This question is argumentative because it's not seeking new information about the expert's findings or methodology. Instead, it's an attack on the expert's (or another engineer's) competence, implying negligence or oversight through the phrasing of the question itself, rather than allowing the expert to present their findings and reasoning.