1

Echard
Elyse Echard
30 November 2012
Dr. Schmidt
CO 305
Interviewing Methods in Law
1. For my project I interviewed Ryan Kammerer, who is a cooperate attorney for
Penndot who formerly worked in criminal law back in my hometown of Latrobe,
Pennsylvania. I conducted the interview to investigate the different techniques
used in this field. My goal for this particular project was to discover what
methods of interviewing are used/preferred in this profession, and how building
rapport can positively affect the quality of an interview. This is important to me,
because I aspire to become a political news analysis/broadcaster. In doing so, I
wanted to research the methods of interviewing utilized within the field of law.
Because there are many different ways in which an interview can be conducted,
and certain advantages and disadvantages in using different techniques, I wanted
to reach out to an individual already in the field that could testify what works and
what doesnt work in an interview.
2. Questions
*** Let bold represent the questions asked during the interview and let italic represent
questions that were altered or changed.
CLIENT INTERVIEWS

2
Echard
1) Anyone who testifies in a courtroom is subject to supportive and adversarial
questioning. How might one of these techniques be viewed as more
preferable to the other?
a. How might one technique be more effective than the other?
b. Can you give an example of this
2) How important is establishing rapport in your position?
a. How do you establish this?
b. How does it effect the interview?
3) How important is the setting when conducting client interviews?
a. Where do you conduct most of your interviews?
b. How might conducting a client interview in your office affect said
interview?
c. What other venues have you used?
d. How do you minimize disruptions?
4) Because clients come from a variety of educational backgrounds, how do you
adapt the client in order to gather information?
a. How does this help keep rapport?
b. Can you give me an example of a time you had to change your
approach to adapt?
5) How do you assure the client that their information will remain confidential?
a. How does assuring confidentiality affect the quality of the interview?
6) Do you feel that rapport or information gathering is more important?
a. If information gathering, do you use the direct approach or indirect
approach?
7) How do you choose to structure your interviews?
a. How do you start the interview?
b. What type of questions do you generally use? Probe open/close
c. Why do you use this approach?
d. How often do you allow clients to elaborate?
e. How do you choose to probe into answers?
8) Do you use silence to gain additional information?
a. How effective is this approach?
b. How often would you say you use this approach?
c. What type of interviewee do you find yourself using this approach on the
most?
9) How do you determine if your client is telling you the truth?
a. What do you look for?
10) Any other comments that you would like to add about client interviews?

3
Echard
WITNESS INTERVIEWS
1) Moving on to witness interviews, how do you identify individuals who may be
able to provide relevant information about the case?
a. How much background research do you do prior to said interview?
b. How do you use police reports?
2) Generally speaking, how many hours do you spend reviewing all elements of
the case prior to the interview?
a. What portions of the case are most important?
b. How do you choose to organize the information?
3) Most eye-witness testimony is limited by the impact of the selectivity process.
How do you know if a witnesss memory is distorted by selective exposure?
a. In dealing with the above, how do you determine whether the witness is
telling the truth?
b. Can you tell me about a time you felt a witness was lying and how you
dealt with it?
4) How do you prepare your witness for a deposition?
a. What type of techniques/questions do you use?
5) How do you prepare your witness to be examined by the other side?
a. What type of techniques/questions do you use?
b. What is the primary purpose of the deposition?
c. What do you want to be sure is done in the deposition?
6) Does the deposition assist you in preparing for your case?
a. How?
7) Is there anything else about conducting depositions you would like to add?
JURY SELECTION INTERVIEWS
1) Lets talk about jury selection interviews. In voirdire, what would be the single
best question to ask to assertain bias against your case?
a. How does this question deduce bias?
b. What is your general question strategy in voir dire?
c. Can you give me an example of a time when your voir dire allowed in a
jury giving information that disqualified him/her from the jury?
2) In addition to getting unbiased jurors, do you use voir dire to sensitize the
jury to your case?
a. How?

4
Echard
b. Do you use voir dire to establish you or your clients credibility with the
jury?
c. Can you give me an example when you have done this?
3) Are leading questions helpful in regard to voirdire?
a. What cues do leading questions provide?
b. Are there certain types of leading questions that you must avoid?
c. Are there times when leading questions are illegal to use?
4) Is there anything else you would like to add about the voir dire interview?
CROSS EXAMINATIONS
1) Lets transition to cross-examination. What is involved in preparing for a
direct examination?
a. How should the witness act during the direct examination?
b. How should the witness act during cross-examination?
2) How do you prepare for cross-examination?
a. What techniques do you use in cross/examination?
i. Probe open/closed questions
b. How, if at all, are these different from the techniques you would use in
direct examination?
c. Can you give me an example?
d. Do you agree with the general rule that you shouldnt ask a question
on cross-examination that you dont know the answer to?
i. Have you ever seen this happen? Tell me about it
3) Is there any information that I have not asked for that you feel is
important to know?
3. Results/Findings
When planning out my interview schedule, I decided to divide it up into four
parts: client interviews, witness interviews, jury selection interviews, and cross
examination. My initial goal was to try and cover these four areas of law, and investigate
how lawyers choose to format their interviews, and what techniques are more effective
than the other.
Questions that dealt with this goal were:
1) Anyone who testifies in a courtroom is subject to supportive and adversarial
questioning. How might one of these techniques be viewed as more preferable to
the other?

5
Echard
a) It all depends on the point you are trying to make. Obviously
you want to prepare your client for both. What I like to do is
keep them on the key points for direct. I try to focus my client on
trying not to get into arguments with the other side, and just have
them answer the key points. In adversarial questioning you have
to think like the other side and predict what they are going to do.
So its a little harder, but you can ask the guy to repeat himself if
you dont understand.
2) How might one technique be more effective than the other?
a) I guess it all depends on how you are doing it. I can
question in the courtroom an adversary and make it look
like hes on my side. Thats typically what I like to do. I
like the jury to think that Im basically one of them and that
Im just trying to get to the truth. So if I can cross examine
someone and make him or her seem like theyre on my side
and get them to say what I want, thats a home run. Most
attorneys tend to get into this thing where they throw
punches and act like theyre a big bully. I think that that
actually turns the jury off, just from talking with them
afterwards. So my personal preference is to seem like the
nice guy who wouldnt hide anything, and, of course, Im
just trying to get to the truth.
1) How do you choose to structure your interviews??
a) Not really, everything is trying to keep it simple; what do I want to get out of this?
I guess it depends on whom Im interviewing. If Im interviewing an expert for
one of my current cases I know what I want to prove. I tell him what I need to
prove and how it fits the theory of my case and then he shows me how it works
with his opinion. I sit down with my appraisers. These are guys who value
property before a condemnation and after and tell you what the damages are and
it gets technical. I know all the guys that we use at this point so they tend to know
what I do and dont know and how they have to spoon feed it to me so its
developed over the years. In a criminal case, the main thing is getting them to
trust you right off the bat. Because again, the more theyll tell you the better off
you are. You never want to be the attorney who is the last person to know whats
going on.
1) How do you use silence to gain additional information?
a) I guess thats basically active listening. I think we all have a tendency to
anticipate an answer and finish someones sentence which is something a judge
broke me of because you realize its incredibly rude and if you know the answer
then why are you asking the question. But its a tendency we all have, because we

6
Echard
have these preconceived notions of what we think is going on. So I think its more
of an active listening thing. You ask the question and let them get everything out.
And that also shows that you trust there opinion and you value what they say.
1) What is involved in preparing for a direct examination?
a) In a direct examination you are in control. So again, getting back to the story of
the jurors falling asleep, dont sweat the details hit the main points. If you keep it
focused, you leave less room for cross-examination of your own client or your
own witness. So its about knowing exactly what you want to get out of it and
keeping focused on those key points and nothing more.
From these answers, it is evident that interviewing in law is very much like a
game, where you always have to predict what the other sides move will be and prepare
accordingly. This sense of preparation applies to both the lawyer and the way in which
he or she prepares their client. One of the main key points that I gathered from Ryan
when asking these types of questions was that building a good rapport with the jury, and
building trust. This leads into the second key motive in conducting this interview, which
was finding how big rapport comes into play.
1) How important is establishing rapport in your position?
a) Everything, not just with your client but also with the judge, the jury. I look at it
as if you can get them to trust you; I mean your whole career is based on what
you say. If people feel like they cant trust you they wont even listen to what you
have to say in the beginning. It goes along with not seeming like a bully, seeming
like you are on their side, having a reputation where you tell the truth and you are
trustworthy and that goes a long way. There is always this saying that you are
dealing with 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty, I dont view it like that at
all. Jurors are very smart, and they pick up on things and the first thing they pick
up on is if they like you or not so I try to build rapport with them. We start with
jury selection where we bring them in individually and ask them questions so they
feel that they know me right off the bat. I feel that that is everything.
a. How does it affect the interview?
a) It depends on whom you are interviewing. But I never want to talk to someone as
if I am talking down to him or her. I think the tendency is when someone is
dealing with a lawyer that they can be intimidated by it. I dont find the
profession to be an intimidating profession and I dont think thats effective. I
want them to feel as though I am any guy just trying to get to the truth so I always
shake hands, ask questions, just try and get to know them a little better and not
act like I know more then they do about this certain subject and just seem easy to
understand and be perceived that way.

7
Echard
1) Because clients come from a variety of educational backgrounds, how do you
overcome this barrier in order to gather information?
a) Its a matter of relating to them, and I think its important getting him or her to
trust you in the criminal setting and in the setting I have now where most of the
time my client knows more about a subject than I do, so I say educate. When its
an engineering or appraisal issue you have to tell me how to do this because
thats not my field. But the comfort with that is the jury doesnt know that stuff
either. It helps to make it easily digestible for them when I get some information
out of them. Now in the criminal setting it was a lot of trying to get them to adjust
their attitude and their demeanor. You get all different types of different crimes
but you get a lot of times, say a guy that doesnt have the greatest social graces in
terms of relating and comes across as intimidating so you try to get them to tone
that down a bit.
a. How does this help keep rapport?
b) I think the main thing is to make your client feel comfortable and feel like you are
on there side. Not making them feel like you are talking down to them is huge
because if they feel that you think less of them obviously they are not going to
trust you as much. In criminal setting they also want to make sure that you know
as much as you possibly can and have their best interests at heart. Now with
dealing with professional people, its more about just being honest. Letting them
know that you need there help as well and that you actually value their opinion.
Its amazing how when you let someone feel valuable how much more willing they
are to do more and help you more and be more forthright.
b. Can you give me an example of how you overcame this barrier
of communication?
c) My favorite client I ever had, I still send him Christmas cards, Ive
gone to visit him in state prison.. His street name was Duck.
When I first met Duck he was in a holding cell when I walked in
the room I could hear him screaming at the state troopers. He
was charged with basically a Wild West armed robbery chase
thing where he had all of these policemen chasing him. I talked
to him in the holding cell with him very briefly; I could tell right
away he didnt think I knew what I was doing. We went into the
courtroom and he starts picking fights with the troopers. Hes
probably 6 foot 4, a lot bigger than I am. I grabbed him by his
hand cuffs while he was still cuffed, and yanked him out into the
hallway and started yelling at him and started saying if you want
to handle your own case and dont respect me enough, go
ahead, you are on your own. And he looked at me and I think at
that point it was a matter of relating to him in a way he
understood; Taking control of the situation and getting in his

8
Echard
face. I didnt prefer to do that, but it got his attention. And after
that point where he saw how I cross examined the officers he
kind of looked at me in the holding office and said you actually
know what your doing. And I said, yeah, thats kind of what
Im here for. Ever since then Ive actually been friends with this
man, and helped him work out a pretty good deal. But anytime
hed be in trouble hed call me first. He makes bad decision but I
deeply care about this person.
2) How do you assure the client that their information will remain confidential?
a) In the job Im in now they kind of understand that, although there is a lot of
sharing information because youre dealing with experts and share reports and
things like that. Theyre a little more sophisticated in understanding the process.
Before in the criminal setting, they know there rights, and again, its a matter of
building trust. Its amazing how you can tell someone what they dont want to
hear and be confrontational about or make them realize that your still on there
side. I always pride myself in letting them understand no matter what I tell you
its what you need to hear. And you do that by listening to them right of the bat.
The more you listen and the more trust you build the more there going to realize
and begin to tell you more. But I would always tell them that anything you say to
me is between you and I and if that becomes an issue we can get another attorney.
So its a matter of just telling them that right off the bat.
a. How does assuring confidentiality affect the quality of the interview?
b) It lets them open up. If they know that whatever they say to you is not going
anywhere else theyll tell you more. Now in the criminal setting, it takes awhile.
They think that if you tell them that they did it then you wont fight for them, that
you dont care about them, which is ridiculous. I went into 95% of my cases
assuming that my guy did something wrong. Maybe not exactly what he was
charged with, and maybe he didnt deserve the punishment that they were going
for, but I assumed something happened. And it would work out so much better if
you would just let me know this Sometimes they never trust you, sometimes they
never come out with everything, but I can tell you that always hurt the case. So
you got to make them understand that I can only help you if I can anticipate
someone out there knows what really happened, you want your lawyer to know
more than anyone else. That only helps you, and they typically got that but it took
awhile.
3) Do you feel that rapport or information gathering is more important?
a) I think it depends on the case. To me, rapport is the biggest thing. And I guess
this is kind of a good question for what I do now, where its technical, property
litigation because again, the jury doesnt know that stuff. The last two jury trials
that I have had that have gone to verdict theres been a time in each case where

9
Echard
my opponent was going through his direct examination, going through his case,
and theres been at least two jurors sleeping and this particular judge fell asleep
each time, so your talking over there head. He had a tone of information, he
knew all the technicalities of the case and he really wanted to get all those
technicalities out but if they dont understand what your talking about, if you
dont have a rapport with these people you are going to put them to sleep. And if
you come across like you are talking over them theyre going to tune you out. Im
always smiling Im always talking close to them Im always making eye contact
because it doesnt matter what you say smart, stupid, technical, out of left field, if
theyre not going to listen to you it doesnt matter. I just want them to pay
attention. Im very proud of the fact that they dont fall asleep when I talk.
4) How is sensitizing the jury important?
a) It depends on what kind of case you have. Again, you want to build a rapport. I
think you and I know each other well enough that I think that you pick up that I
build rapport with humor a lot. But again, if you have an overly sensitive case,
Ive had a lot of cases that dealt with child rape, obviously you cant, you have to
be very serious, but come across as kind. For me, I am never going to be an
effective attorney if I go in like a bully. There are a lot of people that do the
opposite, and want to go in and kick everyone in the shin, thats not me, because I
dont think that thats my personality period so why would I act while Im there.
So I just want to make sure during the jury selection that no matter what the case
that they understand my personality and understand that I am a caring person.
5) Is there any information that I have not asked for that you feel is important to
know?
a) The main thing is if your trying to get information from people, you have to get
them to trust you. But without them feeling comfortable with you and your not
out to get them, the interview might as well never happen.
It is clear from the answers given that rapport can greatly affect the product and quality of
an interview in a positive way, thus benefitting ones case in the long run. Building a
good rapport, building trust, and engaging in good listening activity can allow one to
gather more information quickly, and thus present a stronger case. In some cases, for
example the criminal setting, building trust may take some time, but once one obtains it,
that person and their client are far better off. I think Ryans closing statement sums up
this area perfectly.
The rest of the questions in my interview dealt with the effect the importance of setting in
an interview and the information gathering process.
1) How important is the setting when conducting client interviews?

10
Echard
a) As far as my personal experience I dont think it is. Because in the job that I have
now I deal with engineers and individuals in the department of transportation
appraisals, professional people, whereas the job I used to have as a public
defender I would interview them in a holding cell crammed with 30 other
criminal defendants that are in there from everything from rape, homicide, or dui
so Id say Im kind of jaded in terms of Ive had to adapt from day one and just
out what I needed to get. IT does play a role as far as confidentiality though
since theyre not going to tell you everything obviously because theres people
around and they wont tell you everything if they dont trust you so thats probably
where client interviews are most important in the criminal atmosphere.
a. What other venues have you used?
b) When I first started you were crammed in there and there were defendants all
over it was almost like tramping on there constitutional rights since you
potentially had someone that they were going to testify against one cell over.
Now I know that in Westmorland county where I practice they pull you into a
stockman room but you always have to be aware of the message thats being
given, even if theres not someone in the room talking to you. They read body
language and they can pick up on say, well I guess Joes testifying against me if
you pull him out and hes not making eye contact. Theres other things you
have to think about other than just proving your case, its protecting your client,
and thats tricky sometimes.
2) How do you identify individuals who may be able to provide relevant
information about the case?
a) Well in my prior experience in criminal work, Id get my information from the
criminal complaint and the interview with my client, which you would think,
theyd know more about it than anyone else. Theyre obviously a source of what
happened my interview with them and in the criminal complaint, and you kind of
discover you get from the other side. In my current case, the eminent domain
stuff, again, we have experts you talk to appraisal, your appraiser, engineers who
actually designed the project. A lot of times theyll tell you what actually
happened, sometimes you get different technicalities where you need a different
expert thats not just an appraiser but that does water damage testimony, things
like that. Thankfully working for the department of transportation you have to
rely on a lot of resources for that you have to rely on a lot of people for that so
you have to start small and throw a wide net.
a. How much background research do you do prior to said interview?
b) Depends on which interview. The initial interview, not much. Right now we get
petitions which ask for money damages so I base it on the petition and then I go
straight to one head of the department and ask what we have on this and then it
goes from there. Further along down the process when I start to develop my

11
Echard
theory on how I want to present the case then I start to direct who I want to talk to
or the type of person I want to talk to and again I might go to that department
head and say this is what I need someone to say, who do I talk to and they give me
that person. In the criminal atmosphere usually its after the initial hearing in
every case, even in the case I have now you go through one hearing even before
you ever get to the jury trial and I use those as kind of a discovery thing where I
figure out is there anyone else who knows something or I should get information
from. I could care less whether I win or loose that first initial hearing as long as
I get as much information as possible.
3) Generally speaking, how many hours do you spend reviewing all elements of the
case prior to the interview?
a) I dont work off of billable hours so dont keep track of that I just do what I need
to do, Im lucky in that regard cause most attorneys work off of billable hours. It
really just depends. The longer you are in a certain job the less time you have to
take doing that cause you know exactly what you need to get regardless of the
case at that point.
4) What is involved in preparing for a direct examination?
a) In a direct examination you are in control. So again, getting back to the story of
the jurors falling asleep, dont sweat the details hit the main points. If you keep it
focused, you leave less room for cross-examination of your own client or your
own witness. So its about knowing exactly what you want to get out of it and
keeping focused on those key points and nothing more.
a. How should the witness act during the direct examination?
b) They should act completely forthright, which can get lost when you are getting
confrontational. In my last two-jury trials, the other attorney was trying to bait
my witness to fight with him and make it seem like they were trying to hide
something. And I always tell them, let them. Let them be the smaller person, let
them be emotional, because jurors typically, lets say when you are fighting about
money, they will interpret an overly emotional person with someone who is trying
to hide or isnt giving the full truth because no one gets that emotional about
money especially in businesses so just answer the question, if you need
clarification, ask for it, but dont get emotionally charged back at them. No one is
trying to challenge your intelligence. They just want information.
b. What about cross-examination?
c) I never get confrontational with people unless I know I can show that they are a
liar. But I also try and take the cue of the jury too. If I see that theyre making
faces and theyre kind of giving me permission to attack then I take it a little bit.

12
Echard
Its funny; its just a matter of feel. Because theyll let you know when youre
going too far too. But the main thing is known what theyre going to say before
they get on that stand. And you get that from a transcript. I always take a
transcript from a previous pulmonary hearing of a board of rues hearing that I
have now. I highlight things that I find important but I chizzle it down and
summarize the entire transcript so if I go to page 40 at this line they said this.
And if I find that they contradict themselves, I go back and show that they said
something different and then also the jury thinks that theyre lying about
everything.
In answering these questions, Ryan made is clear that his main concern when gathering
research on a case is getting as much information as possible before developing a theory.
One of the answers Ryan had given me had to deal with the impact of scenery. In Ryans
experience, he hasnt ever felt that scenery has plaid a huge role, like I had anticipated it
would. Due to the fact that Ryan works with professionals, interviews would take place
in a professional setting. However, he did admit that scenery placed more of a role in the
criminal setting when dealing with confidentiality, as most individuals will sensor what
they will say when surrounded by other people.
3) Analysis of Interviewing Style
1) During my interview, I tired to stay as close to the question outline as possible. In the
first half of the interview, I was successfully able to stick to the proper order of questions
and probes, but once I realized that I was running out of time, I quickly transitioned to
asking a couple questions relating to cross examination and jury selection interviews.
This way, I would succeed in covering all four areas that I had initially wanted to cover.
At some points in the interview, the questions I had asked were introduced a little bit
differently from what I had originally typed up in an attempt to make a smooth transition,
and try and tie in what was said into the follow up question. But for the most part I
tended to stick with what I had prepared.
2) Due to the fact that Ryan had rescheduled my interview to be done three hours prior to
him giving me notice, I was rushed to try and finish my question outline and be properly
prepared to conduct the interview. This only hurt me, because I was under high stress
while interviewing Ryan, and that definitely came through with my high-pitched voice,

13
Echard
and refusal to deviate from the script. Had I had the time to prepare myself for the
interview, I feel that I would have made more of an effort to engage with Ryan and let the
questions come more naturally.
3) This interview was very different between the ones we had to do in class. Here, there
was a lot more pressure interviewing a professional in a field you are trying to pursue,
whereas interviewing a fellow classmate. I feel that because I was more relaxed during
the in class interviews, my performance was a lot better. Also, because I chose to
conduct this interview before we began the in class interviews, I missed out on the great
tips that were given while watching my classmates, and how to enhance the quality of
your interview.
4) I feel that I did very little talking in my interview with Ryan. If we were basing this
off of percentages, I would credit Ryan with about 90% of the talk time. My time was
mostly spent listening to him answer my questions, and making sure that he finished his
thought before I would probe or ask a follow up question.
5) I feel that the most difficult part of my interview was creating open questions. For me,
it is extremely hard to avoid using question pitfalls, as the people I spend the most time
with tend to form their questions in a form of a question pitfall. Because of this, it only
seems natural to form my questions in this fashion. Trying to break that habit will
continue to be a challenge.
6) Even though I struggled with creating my outline of questions, after I had gone
through and polished it, I was very pleased with the outcome. Once again I find that my
best work is done when I am forced to work under pressure.

14
Echard
7) If I were to try and conduct this interview again, I would make sure to engage more
with my interviewee and generate some questions that specifically relate to the answer
given. Also, one thing I learned while watching some of my classmates conduct there in
class interviews, I would have definitely probed into more personal examples from my
interviewee. I did probe deeply into how an individual in Ryans profession overcome an
educational barrier in order to gather information, how he/she would go about keeping
rapport, and a personal example from Ryans past of how he overcame this barrier.
However, I failed to continue with that method of digging for deeper information for the
duration of my interview. In regard to the questioned I had asked, I would have made sure
to cover all four areas evenly. Lastly, I would have definitely invested in a microphone
so that both my voice and Ryans voice could be heard more clearly.

4) Problems
When doing this project, a few problems occurred that in the future, could be prevented.
I had originally set up my interview with Ryan for Saturday morning, as I was making a
three-hour drive back home on Friday. I had planned to redo the format of my entire
interview, formulate more questions and probes, and really fine-tune my interview
schedule as a whole. However, less than 30 minutes after having arrived at my house
around 6pm, Ryan called me and requested to reschedule the interview for 9pm that
night. Exhausted from the long drive and motivated by a time crunch, I redeveloped my
entire interview with the four hours I had before I met up with Ryan at 9pm to conduct

15
Echard
the interview. Another problem that occurred was my lack of a microphone. Due to the
fact that I was under so much pressure time wise and stressed about finishing the layout
of my interview, I did not have time to find the microphone I have stored at home
somewhere in my holiday closet. Lastly, I feel that I could have done a better job with
making small, lighthearted comments in between the answers given and the questions I
asked. Had I not been so stressed to have everything run smoothly and cover all the
questions I wanted to cover in the short time I had, I feel like I would have made more of
an effort. To correct these problems for the future, I would have managed my time better
and have been more prepared. I would have also be sure to make more of an effort to be
personable, and not read right off of the script per say. Overall though, I feel that I
obtained solid information, and my interviewee was very cooperative and insightful.

Contact information:
Ryan Kammerer
Cell phone: (724) 493-2948
Address: 35 W Pittsburgh Street
Greensburg, PA 15601-2323

Dear Ryan Kammerer,

Thank you so much for taking the time to sit down and give a brief
interview with me. I know you are extremely busy and I appreciate
your time.
Sincerely,
Elyse Echard

16
Echard