Cross-Examination Toolkit: Chapter Outlines, Impeachment Sequences, and Reptile Defense Scripts

Summary. This toolkit collects working templates for preparing and conducting cross-examination at deposition and trial, and for preparing witnesses to withstand it. It includes an admissions memo, a fillable chapter outline, a witness intelligence and bias worksheet, exhibit foundation scripts, and impeachment sequences for prior sworn testimony, unsworn statements, and omissions. It also provides scripts for locking in lack of memory, making a record of deposition obstruction, a Reptile defense witness-preparation module with objection scripts and a motion in limine outline, a Reid-tactic recognition card, and a question bank organized by subject. Each template states its purpose, owner, and timing, uses bracketed placeholders, and is followed by drafting commentary tied to the governing rules and cases. A running fictional trucking case shows each template in use.

How to use this toolkit

Each template below has a Purpose, an Owner (who on the team usually prepares or uses it), and When to use it, followed by the template itself and drafting commentary. Replace every [BRACKETED PLACEHOLDER]. Adapt the scripts to your judge's practices and your jurisdiction's local rules.

The method behind the templates (Pozner-Dodd chapters, Younger's restraint, the Reptile and its defense, and Reid-derived questioning) is explained in Cross-Examination Methods Compared: Pozner-Dodd, Younger's Ten Commandments, the Reptile, and the Reid Technique. The step-by-step deposition process is in Cross-Examining an Adverse Witness at Deposition: A Practical Guide, and the preparation tasks are in Cross-Examination Preparation Checklist: A Practical Checklist.

The running example

Okafor v. Ridgeline Freight, Inc. (fictional) is a federal diversity case. A Ridgeline tractor-trailer driven by Dale Pruitt rear-ended the Okafor family's minivan on Interstate 70 in heavy rain. Plaintiffs' counsel is Teresa Vance; Ridgeline's counsel is Marcus Hale. Ridgeline's safety director, Karen Albers, is also its Rule 30(b)(6) designee on training and inclement-weather policy. Mr. Pruitt gave a recorded statement to Ridgeline's insurer two days after the crash, testified at deposition, and will testify at trial.

Template index

Template 1: Admissions memo

Purpose: Translate the elements of each claim and defense into the specific admissions you need from this witness. Owner: Lead taking lawyer. When to use: Before any outline is written, typically three to six weeks before the examination.

ADMISSIONS MEMO
Case: [CAPTION]                      Witness: [NAME, TITLE]
Examination: [DEPOSITION / TRIAL]     Date: [DATE]    Time available: [HOURS]
Purpose: [DISCOVERY / LOCK-IN / TRIAL PRESERVATION / SJ RECORD / TRIAL CROSS]

Theory of the case (2-3 sentences): [THEORY]

| Claim/defense | Element | Admission sought (as quoted sentence) | Source (Bates / page:line) | Priority (A/B/C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [CLAIM] | [ELEMENT] | "[ADMISSION]" | [SOURCE] | [A] |

Subjects to avoid (risk outweighs reward): [LIST]
Closing passage this examination supports (draft): [TEXT]

Commentary. Phrase each admission as a fact, not a conclusion. A witness will agree that "the handbook says to reduce speed by one-third in heavy rain"; the witness will not agree that "Mr. Pruitt was negligent," and a lay witness's opinion on that legal question may be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 701 in any event. Priority A admissions go into the first two-thirds of the time budget, since Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1) caps a deposition at one day of seven hours absent stipulation or order.

Running example (excerpt): "Ridgeline's handbook requires drivers to reduce speed by approximately one-third in heavy rain" (Ex. 14 at 22; A). "Mr. Pruitt was trained on the adverse weather section" (training record RFI-0331; A). "Ridgeline did not discipline Mr. Pruitt after the crash" (B).

Template 2: Chapter outline

Purpose: Organize the examination into chapters, each with one goal, a funnel (at deposition), a lock, exhibits, and impeachment sources. Owner: Taking lawyer. When to use: One to three weeks before the examination; revised the night before and, at trial, during direct.

CHAPTER [NO.]: [TITLE]                         Time budget: [MINUTES]
Goal (admission no.): [ADMISSION NUMBERS FROM TEMPLATE 1]
Exhibits (in order): [EX. NO. / BATES]
Impeachment sources: [DOC / PAGE:LINE]

FUNNEL (deposition only)
  Open:      Tell me about [EVENT].  /  What happened next?
  Narrow:    Who was present?  /  What did [PERSON] say?  /  What documents?
  Exhaust:   Anything else about [EVENT]?  /  Anyone else?  /  Have you told me everything?

LOCK (one fact per question; statements, not questions)
  1. [FACT]                                        Source: [ ]
  2. [FACT]                                        Source: [ ]
  3. [FACT]                                        Source: [ ]
  STOP HERE. (Do not ask: "[THE ONE QUESTION TOO MANY]")

If the witness denies a lock fact: go to [IMPEACHMENT TEMPLATE / EXHIBIT].
Notes for closing: [INFERENCE TO ARGUE]

Commentary. The chapter structure follows Larry Pozner and Roger Dodd's Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques: leading questions only, one new fact per question, chapters in a logical progression. Leading is permitted on cross and with adverse or hostile witnesses under Fed. R. Evid. 611(c), and applies at deposition through Rule 30(c)(1). The "STOP HERE" line enforces Irving Younger's ninth commandment (avoid the one question too many). At trial, delete the funnel entirely and stay within the scope of direct and credibility under Rule 611(b).

Running example:

CHAPTER 4: ADVERSE WEATHER RULE                 Time budget: 20 min
Goal: admissions 1, 2
Exhibits: Ex. 14 (Driver Handbook, p. 22); Ex. 31 (training record)
LOCK
  1. Exhibit 14 is Ridgeline's Driver Handbook.
  2. Page 22 is titled "Adverse Weather."
  3. It says: "In heavy rain, reduce speed by approximately one-third."
  4. Ridgeline trains every new driver on page 22.
  5. Mr. Pruitt completed that training on [DATE] (Ex. 31).
  6. The ELD shows 63 mph at 4:12 p.m.
  STOP HERE. (Do not ask: "So he violated your rule?")

Template 3: Witness intelligence and bias worksheet

Purpose: Gather everything about the witness that bears on credibility, bias, and prior statements. Owner: Associate or paralegal, reviewed by the taking lawyer. When to use: At the start of preparation.

WITNESS: [NAME]          Relationship to parties: [EMPLOYEE / FORMER EMPLOYEE / EXPERT / NONPARTY]
1. Prior sworn statements
   | Date | Type (depo/decl/testimony/verified pleading) | Case/forum | Oath? | Location of copy |
2. Unsworn statements (emails, texts, posts, recorded interviews, insurer statements)
   | Date | Medium | Recipient | Key content | Authentication plan |
3. Bias, interest, motive
   Compensation tied to outcome: [ ]    Employment/relationship: [ ]
   Pending claims or discipline: [ ]    Fee arrangement (experts): [ ]
4. Convictions (Rule 609 analysis)
   | Offense | Date of conviction/release | Dishonesty element? | Over 10 years? (notice sent [DATE]) |
5. Specific instances of untruthfulness (Rule 608(b); no extrinsic proof)
   | Instance | Good-faith basis | Source |
6. Prior testimony in other cases (search: [DATABASES / DOCKETS])
7. Public statements and social media (capture method and date)

Commentary. Bias is the most powerful impeachment category. The Supreme Court in Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974), called exposing a witness's motivation "a proper and important function" of cross-examination, and United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (1984), held bias impeachment proper under the Federal Rules. Convictions are governed by Fed. R. Evid. 609; for a conviction more than ten years old, give reasonable written notice of intent to use it under Rule 609(b)(2). Specific instances under Rule 608(b) may be asked about but not proved extrinsically, so you take the answer. Each entry needs a good-faith basis: ABA Model Rule 3.4(e) bars alluding at trial to matters not reasonably believed to be supported by admissible evidence.

Running example: Mr. Pruitt's recorded insurer statement (unsworn; recorded; authentication through the adjuster), his deposition (sworn), and a 2022 speeding citation (not a conviction usable under Rule 609; potentially relevant to negligent retention instead).

Template 4: Exhibit foundation scripts

Purpose: Authenticate documents and lay hearsay-exception foundations through the witness, on the record. Owner: Taking lawyer. When to use: At deposition (to build the summary judgment and trial record) and at trial when no stipulation exists.

A. Email or message authored by the witness
Q. I've handed you Exhibit [NO.], Bates [RANGE]. Do you recognize it?
Q. It's an [EMAIL / TEXT / CHAT MESSAGE] from you to [RECIPIENT]?
Q. Sent on [DATE] from your [ACCOUNT / PHONE]?
Q. You wrote it?
Q. It's a true and accurate copy of what you sent?

B. Business record (Rule 803(6))
Q. Exhibit [NO.] is a [RECORD TYPE] kept by [ENTITY]?
Q. Entries are made at or near the time of the [EVENT]?
Q. By someone with knowledge of the [EVENT], or from information transmitted by such a person?
Q. It is kept in the course of [ENTITY]'s regularly conducted business?
Q. Making this kind of record is a regular practice of that business?
Q. You are familiar with how these records are created and kept because [BASIS]?

Commentary. Authentication requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims under Fed. R. Evid. 901. The business-records elements track Rule 803(6); a certification under Rule 902(11) can substitute at trial if properly noticed. Statements by a party's employee on a matter within the scope of employment are not hearsay when offered against the party under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), which often makes a business-records foundation unnecessary for the opposing party's own emails. Testimony and authenticated exhibits from a deposition are proper summary judgment materials under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).

Template 5: Impeachment with prior sworn testimony (commit, credit, confront)

Purpose: Impeach a witness whose testimony contradicts the witness's own deposition, declaration, or prior testimony. Owner: Taking lawyer, with a second chair or paralegal handling the transcript or video clip. When to use: At trial whenever live testimony departs from a sworn prior statement on a point that matters; at deposition when the contradiction is needed for summary judgment or the witness may be unavailable.

STEP 1: COMMIT (lock the current testimony; use the witness's own words)
Q. [MR./MS. NAME], you told this jury today that [CURRENT TESTIMONY, VERBATIM]?
Q. That's your testimony?

STEP 2: CREDIT (build up the reliability of the prior statement)
Q. You gave a deposition in this case on [DATE]?
Q. At [LOCATION / BY VIDEO]?
Q. A court reporter was there, and you took an oath to tell the truth?
Q. The same oath you took today?
Q. Your lawyer, [NAME], was with you?
Q. You were asked questions and gave answers?
Q. That was [NUMBER] months after [EVENT], [NUMBER] months closer to it than today?
Q. Afterward, you had the opportunity to read the transcript and make corrections?
Q. [IF APPLICABLE] You signed it, and you did not change the answer I'm about to read?

STEP 3: CONFRONT (read verbatim; do not paraphrase)
Q. I'm reading from page [PAGE], line [LINE], to page [PAGE], line [LINE]. [COUNSEL], I'm at [PAGE:LINE].
   "Question: [QUESTION AS ASKED].
    Answer: [ANSWER AS GIVEN]."
Q. Did I read that correctly?
[STOP. Do not ask which version is true or why they differ.]

Commentary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2) allows any party to use a deposition to contradict or impeach the deponent's testimony as a witness. Under Fed. R. Evid. 613(a), the statement need not be shown to the witness first but must be disclosed to opposing counsel on request, which is why the script announces the page and line. Because a deposition answer is given under penalty of perjury in a deposition, it is also substantive evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), and if the witness is a party, Rule 32(a)(3) and Rule 801(d)(2) independently allow its use. Expect a completeness demand under Rule 32(a)(6) and Fed. R. Evid. 106; read enough context that the passage is fair, or the other side will read it for you and suggest you hid it. For changed errata answers, the original answer generally remains usable; compare Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2000), and Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005). Further impeachment scripts for errata and Rule 30(b)(6) designees are in Deposition Use Toolkit: Designation Charts, Objection Logs, and Impeachment Scripts.

Running example: At trial Mr. Pruitt says he was "watching the road the whole time." His deposition (page 58, lines 4 to 9) says he "glanced down at the GPS for a second" before braking. Ms. Vance commits, credits (oath, counsel present, eight months closer to the crash, read and signed without changing the answer), confronts, and sits down.

Template 6: Impeachment with an unsworn prior statement, and extrinsic proof

Purpose: Impeach with a prior statement not given under oath (an email, text, recorded interview, or oral statement to a third party), and prove it if the witness denies it. Owner: Taking lawyer. When to use: At trial.

COMMIT
Q. Today you testified that [CURRENT TESTIMONY]?

CREDIT
Q. On [DATE], [TIME AFTER EVENT], you gave a recorded statement to [PERSON / ENTITY]?
Q. You knew it was being recorded?
Q. You knew it was important to be accurate?
Q. Events were fresh in your mind then?

CONFRONT
Q. In that statement you said: "[EXACT WORDS]"?

IF ADMITTED: Stop. The impeachment is complete.
IF DENIED OR "I DON'T REMEMBER":
Q. [Play the recording / show the document, after disclosing it to counsel.]
Q. That's your voice? / That's your message?
   [If the witness still denies: prove the statement through the foundation witness
    (e.g., the adjuster or custodian) later in the case, after the witness has had the
    opportunity to explain or deny.]

Commentary. Under Rule 613(b), as amended effective December 1, 2024, extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement ordinarily may not be admitted until after the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny it and the adverse party an opportunity to examine on it, unless the court orders otherwise (the December 1, 2024 amendment made that prior opportunity the default; check local practice on how strictly it is enforced). The script supplies that opportunity before the extrinsic proof. An unsworn statement by a nonparty witness is admissible only to impeach, not for its truth, and the opponent may request a limiting instruction under Rule 105; if the declarant is a party or the party's agent speaking within the scope of the relationship, it is also substantive under Rule 801(d)(2). Courts generally do not allow extrinsic proof of an inconsistency on a purely collateral matter, and Rule 403 gives the court discretion to exclude impeachment that wastes time.

Running example: Two days after the crash, Mr. Pruitt told Ridgeline's insurer, on a recorded call, "I was doing about sixty, maybe a little more." At trial he says "about fifty-five." Ms. Vance commits, credits (recorded, two days after, events fresh), and confronts. He says he does not remember. She plays the 8-second clip, which the court admitted conditionally on the adjuster's later foundation testimony.

Template 7: Impeachment by omission

Purpose: Show that a fact the witness now emphasizes was absent from an earlier account where it naturally would have appeared. Owner: Taking lawyer. When to use: At trial, when a witness adds a significant new fact.

COMMIT
Q. Today you told us [NEW FACT]?
Q. That's an important fact?
Q. It's important because [WHY IT MATTERS TO THE WITNESS'S STORY]?

CREDIT
Q. On [DATE] you [GAVE A STATEMENT / WROTE A REPORT] about [EVENT]?
Q. The purpose was to describe what happened?
Q. You knew it should be complete?
Q. You included [DETAIL A], [DETAIL B], and [DETAIL C]?

CONFRONT
Q. Nowhere in that [STATEMENT / REPORT] did you say [NEW FACT]?
[Hand the document to the witness.] Q. Take your time. Show me where it appears.
[If the witness cannot:] Q. It's not there.

Commentary. Omission impeachment works only if the earlier account would naturally have included the fact. Establishing that the witness included smaller details (the "included A, B, and C" questions) is what makes the omission telling. The same Rule 613 procedure applies. In criminal cases, impeachment by a defendant's silence raises constitutional limits not present in civil cases; do not import criminal-case authority here without checking.

Running example: Ms. Albers testifies that Mr. Pruitt told her the minivan "cut him off." His written incident report, completed the next morning, describes the rain, his speed, and the brake application, and says nothing about a lane change.

Template 8: "I don't recall" exhaustion, refresh, and lock script

Purpose: Convert a claimed lack of memory into either a real answer or a locked-in lack of memory that prevents later "recollection." Owner: Taking lawyer. When to use: At deposition, whenever a witness says "I don't recall" on a subject that matters.

EXHAUST
Q. Do you have any memory at all of [EVENT]?
Q. Do you remember [PART 1]? [PART 2]? [PART 3]?
Q. Who else would know?
Q. Is there any document that would refresh your recollection?

REFRESH (Rule 612)
Q. Please read Exhibit [NO.] to yourself, and tell me when you're done.
Q. Having read it, do you now remember [EVENT]?
   [If yes: proceed with open questions. If no: continue.]

LOCK
Q. So as you sit here today, you have no memory of [EVENT]?
Q. You have no memory of [SPECIFIC FACT]?
Q. If you remembered it, you would tell me today?
Q. There is nothing you could look at that would refresh your memory?
Q. And you understand that if you later say you remember, I'll be entitled to ask why you didn't remember today?
   [Optional; some examiners omit as argumentative.]

Commentary. A writing used to refresh memory while testifying must be produced to the adverse party under Fed. R. Evid. 612, which is why you use your own exhibits. If memory is not refreshed and the document qualifies, it may be read into evidence as a recorded recollection under Rule 803(5). A feigned lack of memory is evasion: Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4) treats an evasive or incomplete answer as a failure to answer, supporting a motion to compel under Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(i). For a Rule 30(b)(6) designee, "I don't recall" on a noticed topic may show inadequate preparation; see QBE Insurance Corp. v. Jorda Enterprises, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676 (S.D. Fla. 2012).

Template 9: Obstruction record-making scripts

Purpose: Make a clean, calm record of improper objections, instructions, and conferences, preserving a motion. Owner: Taking lawyer. When to use: At deposition, as obstruction occurs.

A. Speaking or suggestive objection
"Counsel, Rule 30(c)(2) requires objections to be stated concisely and in a
non-argumentative and non-suggestive manner. Your statement '[QUOTE]' suggests an
answer to the witness. I'd ask that objections be limited to 'objection, form' unless
I ask for the basis." 
Q. [To witness] Did counsel's objection affect your answer?

B. Instruction not to answer
Q. [Restate the question.]
"Counsel, are you instructing the witness not to answer?" [Get it on the record.]
"On what basis? Rule 30(c)(2) permits an instruction only to preserve a privilege,
enforce a court-ordered limitation, or present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3)."
Q. [To witness] Will you follow your counsel's instruction?
"We'll mark that question and reserve our rights to seek an order compelling an
answer and fees under Rule 37."

C. Conference during a pending question or break
Q. During the break, did you speak with anyone about your testimony?
Q. Who? For how long? Did you discuss the question that was pending?
Q. Did you review any documents? Which ones?
[Under Hall v. Clifton Precision, the content is discoverable except as to privilege
decisions; elsewhere, at least the fact and timing are generally proper subjects.]

D. Calling the court
"Counsel, given the number of [OBJECTIONS / INSTRUCTIONS], I intend to contact
chambers under [LOCAL RULE / STANDING ORDER]. Let's go off the record to do that."

Commentary. The governing provisions are Rule 30(c)(2) (objections and instructions), Rule 30(d)(2) (sanctions for impeding examination), Rule 30(d)(1) (additional time if impeded), and Rule 37. Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525 (E.D. Pa. 1993), takes the strict view on conferences; In re Stratosphere Corp. Securities Litigation, 182 F.R.D. 614 (D. Nev. 1998), said Hall goes too far. Security National Bank of Sioux City v. Abbott Laboratories, 299 F.R.D. 595 (N.D. Iowa 2014), sanctioned a lawyer for repeated form objections and "clarification" interjections that the court found coached the witness, though the Eighth Circuit reversed the sanction for lack of advance notice in Security National Bank v. Jones Day, 800 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2015). Stay calm on video. The defending lawyer's perspective is in The Art of Defending Depositions in Federal Court: A Comprehensive Guide.

Template 10: Reptile defense witness-preparation module

Purpose: Prepare a corporate witness, Rule 30(b)(6) designee, or defense expert to answer safety-rule questions truthfully without adopting misleading absolutes. Owner: Defending lawyer. When to use: In a dedicated session of 60 to 90 minutes during deposition preparation, after the witness has reviewed the key documents.

SESSION OUTLINE
1. Explain the pattern (10 min)
   Stage 1: general safety rule ("A company should never needlessly endanger the public.")
   Stage 2: importance and application ("That rule applies to you. Breaking it can kill people.")
   Stage 3: violation ("Your driver broke the rule. That needlessly endangered the public.")
   Purpose: video clips for trial; converting reasonable care into an absolute standard.

2. The principles (10 min)
   - Tell the truth. The goal is accuracy, not resistance.
   - Listen for absolutes: always / never / any / every / number one / needlessly / zero.
   - Answer the question with the qualification that makes it true.
   - Company guidelines are not the legal standard. Say what the guideline is and what it is for.
   - You are not a lawyer. Do not adopt legal conclusions ("negligent," "unreasonable," "violated the standard of care").
   - It is fine to say "I can't answer that yes or no" and then explain.

3. Practice pairs (40-60 min). Witness answers; lawyer critiques for accuracy and tone.
   | Question | Accurate answer pattern |
   |---|---|
   | Safety is your number one priority? | "Safety is extremely important. We also [BALANCE OTHER REAL OBLIGATIONS]. I wouldn't call any one thing the only priority." |
   | A company should never needlessly endanger the public? | "Whether something is 'needless' depends on the circumstances. Our job is to manage risk reasonably." |
   | If a driver breaks a safety rule, that's dangerous? | "It depends on the rule and the situation. Some rules are guidelines that require judgment." |
   | Your handbook requires drivers to slow down by one-third in heavy rain? | "The handbook says 'approximately one-third' and also tells drivers to adjust for visibility, traffic, and road conditions." [ONLY IF TRUE] |
   | So your driver violated your rule? | "I can tell you what the handbook says and what the data shows. Whether [NAME] acted reasonably depends on everything he was facing." |
   | That's negligence, isn't it? | "I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not going to apply a legal standard." |
   | You'd agree the jury should hold companies accountable for safety violations? | "That's for the jury to decide under the court's instructions." |

4. Video demeanor (10 min)
   Pause before answering. Look at the examiner. Avoid sarcasm. Do not argue.

Commentary. Preparation must stay within ethical limits: ABA Model Rule 3.4(b) bars assisting a witness to testify falsely, and the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 116 permits discussing the witness's recollection, the law, other evidence, likely questions, and demeanor. The answer patterns above are templates for honest qualification, not scripts to be adopted regardless of the truth; strike any line the witness cannot say truthfully. Lay witnesses generally may not offer legal conclusions under Fed. R. Evid. 701, which is the basis for later exclusion of clips in which a witness was led to agree that conduct was "negligent." For designees, also prepare on the noticed topics under Rule 30(b)(6); see Preparing and Defending a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition.

Running example: Mr. Hale runs the module with Ms. Albers. On the "number one priority" question, she says her honest answer is that safety is "a core value we measure every month, along with on-time delivery." That becomes her answer.

Template 11: Reptile defense objection scripts

Purpose: Preserve objections to Reptile-style questions without speaking objections. Owner: Defending lawyer. When to use: At deposition (concise form objections) and at trial (full objections at sidebar or as permitted).

AT DEPOSITION (concise; state basis only if asked)
  "Objection, form."
  If asked for the basis: "Vague as to 'needlessly.'" / "Incomplete hypothetical." /
  "Calls for a legal conclusion." / "Mischaracterizes the witness's testimony." /
  "Compound." / "Assumes facts not in evidence."

AT TRIAL (to a question)
  "Objection, Your Honor. The question asks a lay witness to apply a legal standard.
   Rules 701 and 403."
  "Objection. The question misstates the standard of care, which is reasonable care
   under the circumstances, not an absolute rule. Rule 403; I'd ask for a curative
   instruction."

AT TRIAL (to argument)
  "Objection, Golden Rule argument. Counsel is asking the jurors to put themselves in
   the plaintiffs' position. I ask that the jury be instructed to disregard it."
  "Objection. The argument asks the jury to protect the community rather than decide
   compensatory damages on the evidence. [Cite in limine ruling, if any.]"
  [If the conduct is repeated: "I move for a mistrial" or reserve for a new trial motion.]

Commentary. Objections to form are waived if not made at the deposition under Rule 32(d)(3)(B), but anything more than a concise objection risks violating Rule 30(c)(2). At trial, a definitive in limine ruling preserves the objection under Fed. R. Evid. 103(b); a tentative or deferred ruling does not, so object when the argument is made. Contemporaneous objection also matters for any later new-trial motion; see Post-Trial Motions in Federal Court: Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, Remittitur, and Relief From Judgment.

Template 12: Motion in limine outline: Golden Rule and community-safety arguments

Purpose: Obtain targeted pretrial rulings barring Golden Rule, community-protection, and similar arguments and specific Reptile-derived testimony. Owner: Defending lawyer. When to use: By the deadline in the pretrial order.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. [X]
TO PRECLUDE GOLDEN RULE, COMMUNITY-SAFETY, AND RELATED ARGUMENTS

I.   Relief requested (be specific)
     A. Bar any argument or question asking jurors to place themselves, their families,
        or their community in the plaintiffs' position.
     B. Bar argument that jurors should base compensatory damages on protecting
        themselves or the community, or on "sending a message." [Address punitive
        damages separately if pleaded.]
     C. Bar argument or questioning that [DEFENDANT]'s internal policies establish the
        legal standard of care.
     D. Exclude deposition testimony at [PAGE:LINE LIST] in which lay witnesses were
        asked to apply legal standards.

II.  Legal standard: court's authority to rule in limine; Rules 103, 104, 403, 701.

III. Argument
     A. Golden Rule arguments are improper as to damages in every circuit to consider them.
        [Caudle (D.C. Cir. 2013); Granfield (1st Cir. 2010); Ivy (5th Cir. 1978); circuit authority.]
     B. Community-protection and send-a-message arguments improperly invite punishment
        in the compensatory phase. [Circuit authority.]
     C. Internal policies do not define the legal standard of care under [STATE] law.
        [State authority.]
     D. Identified clips call for lay legal conclusions (Rule 701) and are unfairly
        prejudicial and confusing (Rule 403).

IV.  Proposed order (attach), listing each category and clip.

Commentary. The D.C. Circuit in Caudle v. District of Columbia, 707 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2013), ordered a new trial after repeated Golden Rule arguments and a "send a message" appeal, and quoted the First Circuit's description in Granfield v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 597 F.3d 474 (1st Cir. 2010), of such arguments as "universally condemned." The Fifth Circuit in Ivy v. Security Barge Lines, Inc., 585 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1978), rev'd on other grounds en banc, 606 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1979) (the en banc court addressed only Jones Act damages),, likewise called the argument "universally recognized as improper." Expect the opposition to invoke the liability-versus-damages distinction: the Tenth Circuit in Shultz v. Rice, 809 F.2d 643 (10th Cir. 1986), relying on Burrage v. Harrell, 537 F.2d 837 (5th Cir. 1976), held that an argument asking jurors to consider a party's position on the reasonableness of conduct, rather than damages, was not improper Golden Rule argument, and Caudle noted that several circuits tolerate liability-phase versions. Draft the motion to the damages and community-protection arguments that are clearly improper, and avoid a broad request to bar "Reptile tactics," which courts often deny as vague. Procedure and banks of standard motions are in Motion in Limine Toolkit: Standard Motion Banks, Opposition Frameworks, and Trial Objection Plans and Drafting and Opposing Motions in Limine: A Practical Guide.

Running example: The court grants parts A and B, grants part D as to two of five clips, and denies part C as premature, ruling that the jury instructions will state the legal standard.

Template 13: Reid-tactic recognition card

Purpose: A one-page card the witness reviews in preparation (not brought into the deposition) to recognize interrogation-derived questioning. Owner: Defending lawyer; reviewed with the witness. When to use: During preparation of any fact witness who may face a skilled examiner, especially on conduct the witness may feel defensive about.

RECOGNIZING PRESSURE QUESTIONS: WHAT TO NOTICE AND HOW TO ANSWER TRUTHFULLY

1. THE WARM OPENING
   Notice: friendly, personal, sympathetic questions; small talk; compliments.
   Remember: the examiner is still the other side's lawyer. Be pleasant and brief.
   Do not volunteer.

2. THE TONE SHIFT
   Notice: friendly becomes serious, or tough becomes sympathetic.
   Remember: this usually means the important questions are next. Slow down.

3. THE SYMPATHETIC THEME
   Notice: "Anyone in your position would have..." / "Nobody would blame you..." /
           "You were just doing what your boss wanted..."
   Remember: that is a statement, not a question. Wait for the question.
   If the question restates what you did in different words, check every word.
   Answer: "That's not how I'd describe it. What happened was..."

4. THE FALSE CHOICE
   Notice: "Did you do X because of A, or because of B?" where both options assume X.
   Remember: you never have to pick one of two options.
   Answer: "Neither." or "I didn't do X." Then say what actually happened.

5. THE SUMMARY
   Notice: "So what you're telling us is..."
   Remember: agree only if the summary is completely accurate. If part is wrong,
   say which part.

6. "I DON'T RECALL"
   Use it only when it is true. If you partly remember, say what you remember.

Commentary. The sequence mirrors the warm Behavior Analysis Interview, theme development, and "alternative question" steps described in Inbau, Reid, Buckley, and Jayne's Criminal Interrogation and Confessions. The Supreme Court has recognized the risk such pressure poses in custody, noting "mounting empirical evidence" of false confessions in Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009), and earlier describing interrogation-manual tactics in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Civil depositions are not custodial interrogations, but the psychology carries over. For the matching objections, "compound," "mischaracterizes the testimony," "assumes facts not in evidence," and "argumentative" are the concise forms permitted under Rule 30(c)(2).

For the taking lawyer. The legitimate parts of the method (rapport, accurate themes, genuine alternatives) are available to you. Misrepresenting evidence is not: police deception tolerated in Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), has no counterpart for lawyers, who are bound by ABA Model Rules 4.1(a) and 8.4(c).

Template 14: Question bank

Purpose: Ready-made questions by subject, to adapt into chapters. Owner: Both sides (the defending lawyer uses the bank to predict and rehearse). When to use: While drafting Template 2 chapters and while preparing witnesses.

Commentary. The discovery column belongs at deposition; at trial, use only the lock-in column, within the scope limits of Fed. R. Evid. 611(b). Expert subjects map to Rule 702 as amended in 2023, Rule 705 (disclosure of underlying facts on cross), Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and the attorney-communication exceptions in Rule 26(b)(4)(C) (compensation, facts or data provided, and assumptions provided and relied on). For full expert outlines, see Expert Deposition Toolkit: Outline Frameworks, Reliance Material Requests, and Rule 26 Protection Maps. For Rule 30(b)(6) topic preparation, see Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Preparation Checklist: A Practical Checklist. Ask preparation questions about documents that refreshed recollection, which Rule 612 reaches, rather than about counsel's selection of documents, which Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1985), treated as protected work product.

Running example: how the templates fit together

In Okafor v. Ridgeline, plaintiffs' counsel used Template 1 to fix nine admissions, Template 3 to find Mr. Pruitt's recorded insurer statement and his training record, and Template 2 to build eight chapters for the deposition of Ms. Albers and six for Mr. Pruitt. At Ms. Albers's deposition, Template 4 authenticated the handbook and training record, and Template 9 handled two speaking objections, after which defense counsel limited himself to "objection, form." Ridgeline's counsel used Template 10 to prepare Ms. Albers and Template 13 to prepare Mr. Pruitt, who rejected a false binary ("Were you rushing because dispatch pressured you, or because you wanted to get home?" "Neither. I was on schedule."). Before trial, Template 12 produced a targeted in limine order. At trial, Template 5 impeached Mr. Pruitt on the GPS glance, Template 6 impeached him on speed with the insurer recording, and Template 7 impeached Ms. Albers on the late-appearing "cut off" account. Plaintiffs' closing used the lock-in chapters; defense counsel objected once under Template 11 when plaintiffs' counsel referred to "families like yours," and the court sustained the objection.

Frequently asked questions

Should I give the witness a copy of the Reid-tactic card to bring to the deposition? No. Notes the witness brings may have to be produced, and a card in the witness's hand looks like coaching on video. Review it in preparation only.

Is it improper to prepare a witness to answer Reptile questions with "it depends"? Not if "it depends" is true and the witness explains what it depends on. Preparing a witness to give accurate, qualified answers is proper; preparing a witness to deny true facts is not (ABA Model Rule 3.4(b)).

Can I use the commit, credit, confront sequence at a deposition? Yes, but decide first whether you want to reveal the impeachment before trial. At deposition, the witness and counsel gain months to prepare an explanation.

What if the court denies my in limine motion on Golden Rule arguments as premature? Object at trial when the argument is made, ask for a curative instruction, and, if repeated, move for a mistrial. Without a definitive ruling, Rule 103(b) does not preserve the objection for you.

How do I authenticate a recorded statement for Template 6? Through the person who made the recording or a custodian, with evidence that the recording is accurate and identifies the speakers, under Rule 901. Plan the foundation witness before trial.

Practical takeaways

• Start with the admissions memo; every other template depends on it.
• Build chapters with one goal each, and write the "stop here" line.
• Commit before you confront, and read prior statements verbatim.
• Under amended Rule 613(b), give the witness the chance to explain or deny before offering extrinsic proof.
• Make obstruction records calmly, then move once with everything collected.
• Prepare witnesses against the Reptile and Reid patterns with honest qualification, not resistance.
• Draft in limine motions narrowly, aimed at clearly improper Golden Rule and community-protection arguments.

This document is general information, not legal advice for any particular situation; the law, local rules, and judges' practices vary, and the facts matter.

Related Documents

Related Articles

• Cross-Examination Methods Compared: Pozner-Dodd, Younger's Ten Commandments, the Reptile, and the Reid Technique: the methods these templates implement.
• Motions in Limine: Strategy, Timing, and Preserving Error for Appeal: the strategy behind Template 12.
• Using Depositions at Trial and on Summary Judgment: Rule 32, Designations, Errata Sheets, and Impeachment: the rules behind Template 5.
• Expert Depositions: Taking Apart the Opinion, Protecting Your Own Expert, and Building the Daubert Record: expert subjects in the question bank.
• Apex Depositions: When Litigants Can Depose the CEO and How Companies Resist: apex depositions of senior executives and how to seek or resist them.

Related Guides

• Cross-Examining an Adverse Witness at Deposition: A Practical Guide: when to use each template, step by step.
• The Art of Defending Depositions in Federal Court: A Comprehensive Guide: the defending side of Templates 9 through 13.
• Drafting and Opposing Motions in Limine: A Practical Guide: drafting Template 12 in full.
• Taking and Defending a Remote Deposition: A Practical Guide: adapting exhibits and record-making to video.
• Seeking or Opposing an Apex Deposition: A Practical Guide: apex depositions of senior executives and how to seek or resist them.

Related Checklists

• Cross-Examination Preparation Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the preparation tasks that call for these templates.
• Defending a Deposition Checklist: A Practical Checklist: witness preparation tasks.
• Motion in Limine Checklist: A Practical Checklist: deadlines and preservation for Template 12.
• Apex Deposition Checklist: A Practical Checklist: apex depositions of senior executives and how to seek or resist them.

Related Toolkits

• Deposition Use Toolkit: Designation Charts, Objection Logs, and Impeachment Scripts: designation and errata templates.
• Deposition Practice Toolkit: Taking, Defending, and Using Depositions in Federal Litigation: notices, stipulations, and objection forms.
• Motion in Limine Toolkit: Standard Motion Banks, Opposition Frameworks, and Trial Objection Plans: standard motion banks.
• Remote Deposition Toolkit: Stipulated Protocols, Exhibit Plans, and Technology Scripts: remote exhibit protocols.
• Apex Deposition Toolkit: Protective Order Motions, Executive Declarations, and Alternative Discovery Proposals: apex depositions of senior executives and how to seek or resist them.