The prosecutor sought to discredit Aaron’s testimony by trying to portray that Aaron is protecting Sam due to them being cousins when in actual fact they are not family related, Aaron just refers to sam as a cousin like a community member. He starts by using direct questions that are narrow and seek a yes or no answer, Aaron does not understand the prosecutor and gives answers that prosecutor hears as declarative statements. The prosecutor did not consider that because Aaron is Indigenous he may not fully understand his method of communication.
The prosecutor uses specific terminology “blood is thicker than water” which Aaron does not fully understand and needs clarification, he also implies guilt by the way he says “you’ve got a problem” which has negative impacts. Then the prosecutor makes that accusation of …show more content…
The prosecutor could have followed up with a response that clarified to Aaron that the term ‘cousin’ meant a child or sibling of one of his parents and not a community cousin.
Q3.
In this situation, the lawyer should have picked up on Aaron repeatedly saying yeah or yep to each question being asked.
This is called gratuitous concurrence, it is a tendency where a person is questioned or interrogated and they will say whatever they think the interrogator wants to hear regardless of whether or not you actually agree with, or even understand the question. This is usually so that they can end a stressful situation, in this situation the lawyer could have used a non-intimidating tone, avoided successions of ‘yes/no’ questions where possible and inviting the witnesses to give their story, to explain the situation in their own words.
Q4.
The lawyer does not notice Aarons gestures and movements of the eyes or head when he is explaining the implications. Aaron looks around the room and then lowers his head, the lawyer should be more alert to these movements of hands, eyes, head or lips and, if necessary he should ask further questions to clarify with Aaron.
The prosecutor uses specific terminology “blood is thicker than water” which Aaron does not fully understand and needs clarification, he also implies guilt by the way he says “you’ve got a problem” which has negative impacts. Then the prosecutor makes that accusation of …show more content…
The prosecutor could have followed up with a response that clarified to Aaron that the term ‘cousin’ meant a child or sibling of one of his parents and not a community cousin.
Q3.
In this situation, the lawyer should have picked up on Aaron repeatedly saying yeah or yep to each question being asked.
This is called gratuitous concurrence, it is a tendency where a person is questioned or interrogated and they will say whatever they think the interrogator wants to hear regardless of whether or not you actually agree with, or even understand the question. This is usually so that they can end a stressful situation, in this situation the lawyer could have used a non-intimidating tone, avoided successions of ‘yes/no’ questions where possible and inviting the witnesses to give their story, to explain the situation in their own words.
Q4.
The lawyer does not notice Aarons gestures and movements of the eyes or head when he is explaining the implications. Aaron looks around the room and then lowers his head, the lawyer should be more alert to these movements of hands, eyes, head or lips and, if necessary he should ask further questions to clarify with Aaron.