Stu Richeson | The Dispute Resolver
In this week’s blog post, we are going to take a brief look at ethical issues associated with preparing a witness for a deposition or to testify at trial. Most attorneys would agree that it is permissible to meet with a witness before the witness’s deposition to discuss what to expect. On the other hand, there is no question that advising a witness to provide false testimony would be improper. But what about the area in between those two extremes? For instance, can an attorney suggest to a witness how to phrase answers to anticipated questions that, while true, might not be the way the witness would have answered the question absent the attorney’s coaching?
A little over a year ago, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued ABA Formal Opinion 508: The Ethics of Witness Preparation. The opinion provides certain examples of things that are and are not permissible in preparing a witness for a deposition or trial.
According to the opinion, it is ethical for a lawyer preparing a witness for trial or deposition to:
- Emphasize the importance of telling the truth
- Explain that a truthful answer can include “I do not recall”
- Inquire into the witness’s probable testimony and recollection
- Identify other testimony that is expected and explore the witness’s version of events in light of that testimony
- Use documents with the witness, including using documents to refresh the witness’s recollection
- Identify potential lines of questioning
- Suggest choices of words that might be employed to make the witness’s meaning clearer
- Instruct the witness to testify only about what they know and remember and not to guess
- Familiarize the witness with the idea of focusing on answering the question that was asked and not volunteering information
The opinion also gives certain examples of improper witness preparation that include:
- Counseling a witness to give false testimony
- Advising a witness to disobey a court order
- Offering an unlawful inducement to a witness
- Procuring a witness’s absence from a proceeding
Similarly, the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 116 (2000) provides that in preparing a witness to testify, a lawyer may:
- Invite the witness to provide truthful testimony favorable to the lawyer’s client
- Discuss the witness’s recollection and probable testimony
- Discuss other testimony or evidence that will be presented and ask the witness to reconsider the witness’s recollection or recounting of events in that light
- Discuss probable lines of hostile cross-examination that the witness should be prepared to meet
- Rehearse testimony
- Suggest choices of words that might be employed to make the witness’s meaning clear
The opinion and the restatement would certainly suggest that a certain amount of “coaching” on how the witness might answer questions is acceptable. However, opinions addressing the issue seem to take a limited view of what is permissible.
In U.S. Welton, CR 09-00153 MMM, 2009 WL 2390848, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2009), the district court addressed a case in which an assistant U.S. attorney advised an FBI agent, in advance of a hearing on a motion to suppress a confession, not to describe the conversation she had with the defendant as “softening him up” before reading him his Miranda rights. The court noted that there were no cases definitively delineating the boundaries of permissible witness preparation for trial. However, the court did state that “directing a witness to use (or avoid using) particular words when phrasing an answer is unacceptable conduct, particularly for a prosecutor . . .” The opinion seemed to suggest there was a somewhat higher standard for a prosecutor than there was for lawyers representing private parties. Nonetheless, despite finding the coaching to be improper, the court did not find the coaching to constitute the type of outrageous governmental misconduct that would warrant dismissal of the indictment.
In In re Brooke P. Halesy, 02-10195 (State Bar of Calif. Hearing Dep’t 2006), a deputy district attorney was suspended from the practice of law for, among other things, working with a witness to an extent that tampered with the heart of the witness’s testimony. The underlying case was a murder prosecution. The prosecution’s case turned on the testimony of the pathologist who performed the autopsy of the victim. The opinion described the pathologist as incompetent with a history of having been terminated for inadequate work performance and poor courtroom demeanor. After the problems with the pathologist’s work history became apparent, arrangements were made for the pathologist to work with a speech pathologist to improve his courtroom presence.
The speech pathologist met with the witness 40 times prior to trial. The speech pathologist not only worked with the witness on his demeanor, but also on how to gloss over the problems with his employment history, as well as how to answer questions on direct and cross-examination. The deputy district attorney also provided the speech pathologist with a set of written answers to questions regarding the pathologists’ background and prior employment. The witness was also provided with audio tapes with anticipated questions and prepared answers to those questions.
The opinion found: “as this training progressed, it went beyond its original purpose to improve Dr. Gill’s courtroom presence — it tampered with the heart of Dr. Gill’s testimony to rehabilitate his credibility.” There is nothing in the opinion that suggested that the deputy district attorney directed the witness to testify falsely, but the opinion suggests that the deputy district attorney did not confirm the truthfulness of certain suggested answers.
In In re Meltzer, 136 A.D.3d 14, 15–16; 21 N.Y.S.3d 63 (2015), the respondent resigned from the practice of law following a disciplinary investigation alleging that in preparing a witness for his client’s criminal trial, the respondent suborned the witness’s perjury and false trial testimony. Investigators claimed the respondent instructed the witness to “downplay” the number of times he met with the respondent to prepare for trial in the event that he was asked such a question on cross-examination. It does bear noting that at trial, the witness gave factually incorrect testimony about the number of times he had met with the respondent, and the respondent did nothing to correct the false testimony.
Based on the forgoing authorities, it seems reasonably clear that in preparing a witness for deposition or trial, it is permissible to advise the witness to focus on answering the question that was asked and not volunteering information. It is also permissible to rehearse testimony during witness preparation and to suggest choices of words that might be employed to make the witness’s meaning clearer. However, “directing a witness to use (or avoid using) particular words when phrasing an answer” may well cross an ethical line.
If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of depositions, deposition preparation, and fact discovery, please plan to join us for the practicum on Mastering Fact Discovery on January 15, 2025, at the ABA Forum on Construction Law Midwinter Meeting in Tampa.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.