There are various means for the exchange of information during the discovery process. The judge expects both sides to be familiar with the evidence that one side had chosen to show to the jury.
Judges become annoyed if the discovery process has not been used properly. An improper utilization of that process would leave each side in the dark, concerning what evidentiary materials the opposing side might show to the jury.
During a deposition, lawyers for both of the opposing parties question a given witness. The questions and answers are recorded, so that the personal injury lawyers in Newmarket can review what a given witness has said. That provides each attorney with the ability to check for any inconsistencies.
Videotaping of a deposition is also allowed. The tape could later be shown to the jury. It would show any pause before answering, or any hesitancy, about providing an answer. By the same token, it would reveal any decision by a witness to take the 5th.
This particular mechanism calls for putting each question and answer in a written form. The person providing the answer must do so under oath. Sometimes the questions relate to the way that the other side will be presenting its case. An interrogatory might include questions about witnesses, exhibits, evidence or arguments.
Requests for production
These represent an effort to obtain certain information. Once that information has been shown to the other party, a representative for that other side would have the right to make a copy of the viewed information.
Requests for admission
This is a request for facts. That person that has received the request would not need to share any opinions with the other side, just facts.
If some witness was unable to come to the discovery session, a lawyer could still arrange for him or her to testify at the trial. A judge would not rule against presentation of a surprise witness, if the absence of a deposition of the same individual could be explained.
Sill, the lawyers for both sides would need to keep from hiding any evidence. A personal injury trial provides both lawyers with a chance to make strong arguments. The judge wants to hear their arguments, and not a suggestion that some item in the evidentiary material was a total surprise to those on the courtroom’s opposite bench.
A good attorney understands how to use the various mechanisms, in order to unearth evidence of an inconsistency. That accomplishment should help the same attorney to form a stronger argument. Strong arguments help to win a case. As long as that strength gets matched with clarity, the members of the jury should be persuaded by the arguments.