Robert Mongeluzzi – Desouza – “The Art of Cross Examination”

In 2009 the Hon. Mark I. Bernstein held a week long symposium bringing together the finest trial attorneys in Philadelphia.

Working together from actual court transcripts the attorneys and Judge Bernstein re-enacted highlights from their careers to be used as teaching tools for other attorneys. The program known as “The Art of Cross Examination” traveled throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. The attached clip of Robert Mongeluzzi was a highlight of the program. This clip teaches advanced strategy in cross examination.

WITNESS: The reason we didn’t provide fall protection is Mr. Dusa was working in an area that did not require fall protection.

ATTORNEY: Mr. Dusa was working in an area where he was bracing the beams, correct?

WITNESS: I don’t know.

ATTORNEY: You told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that there was no reason for Mr. Dusa to be in the atrium area because the beams in that area didn’t need to be braced, right?

WITNESS: That’s correct.

ATTORNEY: And you told us that if you knew that he was working in an area where the beam needed to be braced, then you would have provided fall protection because you knew he would have been working in that area, right?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

ATTORNEY: Now, sir, the reason you told the jury that you didn’t think he would be working in this area was because it was a Model B house, correct?

WITNESS: That’s right. It was a Model B.

ATTORNEY: As a matter of fact, if it was a Model A house, he would have been required to brace the beams there, correct?

WITNESS: Well, it wasn’t a Model A, though. It was a Model B.

ATTORNEY: But if it was a Model A, he would have been required to brace the beams in the Model A house, and you should have provided fall protection, correct?

WITNESS: That’s true, but it wasn’t.

ATTORNEY: So if we prove that it was a Model A house, you’ll turn to the jury, sir, here in this courtroom, and admit you’re wrong and you should have provided fall protection, right?

WITNESS: Yes.

ATTORNEY: Now, sir, you filed the permit for this house as a Model A, isn’t that right?

WITNESS: Well, we file all our permits as Model A’s. We fib a little, so that way the customer has a choice to pick between a Model A or a Model B.

ATTORNEY: Okay. Now, you said you “fib a little.” You wouldn’t do that in the courtroom, would you?

WITNESS: Of course not.

ATTORNEY: By the way, there are different part numbers between the Model A house and the Model B house, isn’t that right?

WITNESS: There are.

ATTORNEY: There are different trusses that are used in those areas. The trusses in the Model A house are different than the trusses in the Model B house, correct?

WITNESS: That’s correct.

ATTORNEY: And there are part numbers for the individual trusses, correct?

WITNESS: There are.

ATTORNEY: And the part number for the Model A house for that truss is 91771. It’s right on your plans, correct?

WITNESS: Yes, that’s right.

ATTORNEY: 91771. So if the trusses in that house, the accident house, are 91771, then it’s an A house, you’re wrong, and you should have provided fall protection, correct?

WITNESS: It was a Model B home, though.

ATTORNEY: But if it’s 91771 trusses, it’s an A house and you’re wrong, correct?

WITNESS: Correct.

ATTORNEY: Okay. Sir, do you mark the trusses with the part numbers?

WITNESS: Me personally?

ATTORNEY: Are they marked?

WITNESS: They are.

ATTORNEY: Are they marked in black Magic Marker?

WITNESS: They are, on the bottom of the truss.

ATTORNEY: Yes, sir. After the accident, you went out and took photographs, correct?

WITNESS: It’s standard procedure.

ATTORNEY: And it was not only standard procedure, but you actually did it, right?

WITNESS: Yes.

ATTORNEY: I want you to look at a shot of that truss. Can you see anything written on the bottom of the truss?

WITNESS: No, I can’t make anything out.

ATTORNEY: Sir, I’m going to ask Mr. Sterling, who has downloaded the digital photograph onto the computer and onto our Smartboard, to enlarge the area of the truss that you photographed after the accident. I want you to take a look at it.

Take a look, sir.

91771 is written on the bottom of that truss, right?

WITNESS: Yes.

ATTORNEY: That’s the number that you told this jury meant that this was a Model A house, isn’t it?

WITNESS: I must be confused.

ATTORNEY: Confused? You must be confused?

WITNESS: Yes.

ATTORNEY: Is that what you’re telling us?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.

ATTORNEY: Sir, the 91771, that number is in the document that you gave us, right?

WITNESS: Yes.

ATTORNEY: It’s an H truss, and that H truss is only in the Model A house, not the Model B house, according to the documents that you gave us and signed under penalty of perjury, right?

WITNESS: Once again, I would need to check my documents. I must be confused.

ATTORNEY: The documents that you gave us? Are you telling us you gave us the wrong documents?

WITNESS: I’m not saying that I gave you the wrong documents.

ATTORNEY: No, you’re saying you don’t know what you’re talking about.

WITNESS: No, I’m just saying I’m confused right now. I need to review the documents.

ATTORNEY: Sir, you have the document right in front of you. The document for the Model A house is sitting right there and shows that the truss number is 91771. What’s confusing about that, sir?

Can’t you turn to the jury and make good on your promise and tell them you were wrong?

WITNESS: Sir, I must be confused.

ATTORNEY: Nothing further.