Law Vibe

From Evan Schaeffer: 

From The Psychiatrist Blog comes news that “witnesses are potentially highly suggestible and words are important”:

The effect of changing a single word in questions has been tested by psychologists Loftus and Palmer in the context of eye witness statements. In one example participants were shown a 30 second videotape of 2 cars colliding, then they were asked questions about the collision. Some participants were asked “About how fast were the cars going when they hit?’ For other people the word ‘hit’ was replaced by ‘smashed’, ‘collided’, ‘bumped’ or ‘contacted’. These words have very different connotations regarding both the speed and force of impact, and this was reflected in the estimated speeds given.

People who heard ‘smashed’ gave a speed estimate of 40.8 miles per hour (mph), people who heard ‘collided’ gave an estimate of 39.3 mph, people who heard ‘bumped’ gave an estimate of 38.1 mph, people who heard ‘hit’ gave an estimate of 34.0 mph and people who heard ‘contacted’ gave an estimate of 31.8 mph. The significance between ‘smashed’ and ‘contacted’ gave a change in the estimated speed of 9mph. In other words, witnesses are potentially highly suggestible and words are important.

In short, be aware of the connotations of the words you choose. It’s an important point not only when you’re questioning a witness, but also when you’re addressing a jury. Meanwhile, if you’re on the other side of the table, be on the alert for objectionable misuses of too much “suggestion.” A question about the speed of two cars that had “smashed,” for example, would lack foundation if the smashing hadn’t yet been established by the witness. The question would also be vague and, perhaps, argumentative.