Which tactic is used by opposing counsel to obtain inconsistent or conflicting answers from a witness?

The tactic used by opposing counsel to obtain inconsistent or conflicting answers from a witness is known as Repetitus Questions. This technique involves repeatedly asking the same or similar questions in different forms to provoke a change in the witness's responses. By doing so, the attorney can create opportunities for discrepancies in the testimony, which may cast doubt on the reliability or credibility of the witness.

In the context of a legal examination, having inconsistent answers can be detrimental to a witness's perceived integrity, thereby influencing the case's outcome. This method relies on human nature; when questioned repeatedly, witnesses may feel pressure or confusion that can lead to varied answers, intentionally or unintentionally revealing inconsistencies.

The other options do not serve the same purpose. Staring, for example, may create discomfort but does not inherently lead to conflicting answers. Mispronouncing a telecommunicator's name could be a tactic used for other reasons, such as to undermine confidence, but it is not aimed at eliciting inconsistencies. Reversing a witness's words could mean twisting their statements, but this is not as methodical or effective in creating conflicting answers as Repetitus Questions.