What tactic can opposing counsel use to show inconsistency in an investigation or testimony?

The tactic of using conflicting answers is a compelling strategy in legal scenarios to demonstrate inconsistency in an investigation or testimony. When opposing counsel presents information or statements from witnesses that do not align, it raises doubts about the credibility and reliability of the testimony being provided. This can be particularly effective in legal proceedings, as juries and judges tend to scrutinize the integrity of evidence.

Conflicting answers can arise from variations in witness statements or discrepancies between what witnesses claim happened versus what was recorded or established in the course of an investigation. Highlighting these inconsistencies allows opposing counsel to question the motivations or recollections of the witnesses, effectively undermining their reliability. This tactic can be pivotal in swaying the perspective of the jury or trier of fact by challenging the coherence of the presented case.

The other options provided, while they may have their own functions in legal questioning, do not specifically target the establishment of inconsistency in the same way. Demanding yes or no answers focuses on simplifying responses, which may not necessarily reveal discrepancies. Condescending counsel speaks more to the attitudes and demeanor of the questioning attorney, which may not directly impact the trustworthiness of testimonies. Repetitious questions might seek to validate or reinforce a point but wouldn't inherently reveal any contradictions