|
(Answer to #1) n conducting an interview, your primary goal is to obtain information. Although some people communicate information readily and effectively, others may need prompting and encouragement. If such people feel comfortable in your presence and in the interviewing environment, they will generally be more willing to disclose information. As you begin, remember that the interviewee may be nervous or uncomfortable. You should put that person at ease as quickly as possible. A minute or two spent chatting casually is time well spent. Also, saying or doing something that shows your concern for the interviewee's physical comfort helps to make the interviewee feel more relaxed. For example, you might offer a cup of coffee or other beverage.
Using language that the interviewee will understand is essential in establishing a good working relationship. If you are interviewing a client with only a grade-school education, for example, do not use the phrase facial lacerations when talking about cuts on the face. If you are interviewing a witness who does not speak English very well, and you are not fluent in the witness's language, have an interpreter present. Because most clients and witnesses are not familiar with legal terminology, avoid using legal terms that will not be clearly understood. If you must use a legal term, be sure that you define the term clearly.
(Answer to #2) The investigation summary should include an overall summary of the findings, a summary of the facts and information gathered from each source, and the paralegal's general conclusions and recommendations based on the information obtained during the investigation.
(Answer to #3) A witness statement should contain the following:
Name, address, and phone number of the witness.
Name, address, and phone number of witness's employer or place of business.
Witness's interest, if any, in the outcome of the claim.
Name of the interviewer and law firm or attorney for which the claim is being investigated.
Date, time, and place of the interview. Nature of the event observed by the witness. Date the event was observed.
Witness's description of the event observed. Attestation clause.
Witness's signature.
(Answer to #4) As a legal investigator, your goal is to elicit as much relevant and reliable information as possible from each witness about the event that you are investigating. When you are asking questions as a legal investigator, you should phrase your questions so that they lead to the most complete answer possible. Investigative questions should thus be open ended rather than call for a yes or no answer.
Also, questions should not be phrased to assume facts. Rather, they should make no assumptions and convey no information to the witness that may influence his or her answer. Generally, the less the witness knows about other witnesses'
descriptions, the better, because those other descriptions could influence the witness's perception of the event. You want to find out exactly what the witness observed, in his or her own words.
Other techniques in questioning witnesses are to use good interpersonal skills, questioning skills, and listening skills, as in any other type of interview.
(Answer to #5) Sources that could be consulted in attempting to locate a witness include a telephone directory, a city directory (available in the library or on the Web), and online tools called people finders. Other sources of information include:
Media reports, e.g., newspaper articles and television videos covering the event being investigated.
Court records, such as probate proceedings, lawsuits, and the like. Deeds to property, usually located in the county courthouse.
Birth, marriage, and death certificates.
Voter-registration lists.
The post office, at which the witness may have left a forwarding address. Credit bureaus.
The tax assessor's office.
City utilities, such as the local electric or water company.
Professional organizations may be useful sources as well, if you learn the witness's profession. You might also check with federal, state, or local governmental agencies or bureaus to see if they have information contained in public records that would be helpful in locating the witness.
(Answer to #6) Authentication is the process of establishing the genuineness of an item that is to be introduced as evidence in a trial.
At trial, an attorney must lay the proper foundation for the introduction of certain evidence, such as documents, exhibits, and other objects, and must demonstrate to the court that the evidence is what the attorney claims. The authentication requirement relates to relevance, because something offered in evidence becomes relevant to the case only if it is authentic, or genuine. Also, the rules of evidence require authentication because certain types of evidence, such as exhibits and objects, cannot be cross-examined by opposing counsel, as witnesses can, yet such evidence may have a significant effect on the jury. The authentication requirement provides a safeguard against the introduction of nonverified evidence that may strongly influence the outcome of the case.
Commonly, evidence is authenticated by the testimony of witnesses. The Federal Rules of Evidence provide for the self-authentication of specific types of evidence. In other words, certain documents or records need not be authenticated by testimony. Certified copies of public records, for example, are automatically deemed authentic. Other self-authenticating evidentiary documents include official publications (such as a report issued by the federal Environmental Protection Agency), documents containing a notary public's seal or the seal of a public official, and manufacturers' trademarks or labels.
(Answer to #7) Direct evidence is any evidence that, if believed, establishes the truth of the fact in question. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence offered to establish, by inference, the likelihood of a fact that is in question. Circumstantial evidence differs from direct evidence in that it does not directly establish the fact in question but only the degree of likelihood of the fact's existence.
Relevant evidence is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a fact in question. Evidence must be relevant in order to be admitted in court; however, relevant evidence will not always be admitted. This is true when the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by other considerations such as evidence that is unnecessary, distracting to the jury, misleading to the jury, or causing an emotional decision by the jury.
|
Quick Reply
