Complex Questions and Cross- examination

One of my dilemmas in law school is finding the connection between my pre-law course and the study of law itself. I tried to embrace the study of law in a philosophical perspective but this attempt ceased when I cannot find a connection between Philosophy and Law [the former is verbose and the latter brief and precise].  Perhaps, it is the novelty of law subjects and the traditional way of teaching and studying law, i.e. memorizing provisions in verbatim and cramming to read several cases that made me feel this way [Of course! You have no time to ask philosophical questions such as “is it a good law?” or “why such a law?” if the only thing demanded from you is to recite legal provisions in verbatim or have to read and recite at least 5 cases per subjects a day, even without delving into the reasons why the plaintiff or defendant lost the case- perhaps it is better to ask the propriety of the remedy accorded by the counsel of the losing party and not just ask the student to narrate the development of the case up to the Supreme Court]. However, as my legal education continues I am slowly seeing a connection between Philosophy and law.  

One way of doing philosophy is through the use of logic. Logic is philosophical method [not a branch of philosophy!] which primarily deals with the validity of reasoning and inference. With this, it is my humble attempt as a student of both disciplines to portray some significance of logical principles in the domain of law, particularly on cross-examination. The attempt will deal on complex question and cross-examination.

Complex Question is a question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims.  It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question, and accepts it as a fact.

These are interrogative forms of question-begging. Perhaps the most familiar example is:

Have you ceased beating your wife? Or “have you stopped selling marijuana?”

The person asked this question cannot reply by a plain Yes or No, because to answer it in such manner would be disastrous. If the witness answers “NO” then he admits that he is still beating his wife or is still selling drugs. If the witness answers “Yes” then he admits that he had been beating his wife [which can be a ground for legal separation or for a criminal case] or has been selling marijuana [an implied admission that he sold prohibited drugs].

The questions, of course, can be answered by dealing with the assumption first, i.e., "I have never been in the habit of beating my wife, and therefore the question whether I have ceased to do so does not arise." Or “I have never been selling marijuana, therefore the question whether I stop selling the same is improper.”

But this takes time and deliberation. A nervous witness during cross-examination could be made to make very damaging admissions by unscrupulous use of this type of question on the part of counsel. It is incumbent then, upon the proponent to object to such questions.

It is a principle in Evidence that questions on cross examination must have a basis; otherwise the question would be objectionable on that ground.  Thus, the question “have you ceased beating your wife?” or “have you stopped selling marijuana?” is objectionable if it was not established that the witness had been beating his wife or selling marijuana.

However,  a nervous witness would naturally answer the questions supra in the negative and if the proponent does not raised a timely objection to the question, then the opposing counsel can point out such matter to his advantage in his memorandum. The same would constitute a judicial admission which cannot be contradicted by the one who made the admissions except for grounds provided by law, such as when the admission was made through a palpable mistake or no such admission was made.