Also known as: question and answer · questions and answers · Q&A · Q and A · deposition format · interrogatory response
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A format for eliciting testimony in which counsel poses successive questions to a witness who provides responsive answers, used to present offers of proof when evidence is excluded.
Quintina Qualls sought to introduce prior statements by a witness that the court had excluded as hearsay. Her counsel requested to demonstrate the content through direct questions and answers. The judge directed that the offer proceed in question-and-answer form outside the jury's presence so the record would reflect the excluded material without suggesting it to the jury.
Quincy Quigley testified on direct examination that he had never spoken to police about the incident. On cross-examination the prosecutor confronted him with a transcribed question-and-answer statement given after arrest. The statement was used solely to challenge his credibility even though it had been obtained without Miranda warnings.
The State of New York charged petitioner Harris in a two-count indictment with twice selling heroin to an undercover police officer on January 4 and January 6, 1966. At the jury trial, the undercover officer testified as to the details of the two sales, a second officer verified collateral details, and a third offered testimony about the chemical analysis of the heroin. Petitioner Harris took the stand in his own defense. He admitted knowing the undercover police officer but denied a sale on January 4. He admitted making a sale of the contents of a glassine bag to the officer on January 6 but claimed it was baking powder and part of a scheme to defraud the purchaser. On cross-examination, petitioner was asked whether he had made specified statements to the police immediately following his arrest on January 7 that partially contradicted his direct testimony. In response, petitioner testified that he could not remember virtually any of the questions or answers recited by the prosecutor. At the request of petitioner’s counsel, the written statement was placed in the record for possible use on appeal but was not shown to the jury. The trial judge instructed the jury that the statements attributed to petitioner could be considered only in passing on his credibility and not as evidence of guilt. The jury found petitioner guilty on the second count of the indictment. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a per curiam opinion. The prosecution made no effort in its case in chief to use the statements. The prosecution conceded they were inadmissible under Miranda because no warning of a right to appointed counsel was given before questions were put to petitioner when taken into custody. Petitioner made no claim that the statements were coerced or involuntary. The Supreme Court granted the writ to consider whether such a statement may be used to impeach the petitioner’s credibility.
View caseQuinley Quincy offered a certified transcript of a supervisor's sworn deposition taken during an administrative investigation. The transcript consisted entirely of question-and-answer exchanges recorded by a court reporter. After the supervisor became unavailable, the court admitted the transcript to prove motive in the whistleblower action.
In 1983, petitioner Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc., published the Journal News, a newspaper in Hamilton, Ohio, that endorsed the reelection of incumbent municipal judge James Dolan. Respondent Daniel Connaughton was the Democratic candidate challenging Dolan in the November 8 election. A grand jury was investigating bribery allegations against Billy Joe New, the director of court services, who had resigned and been arrested. On September 17, 1983, Connaughton conducted a tape-recorded interview at his home with Patsy Stephens and her sister Alice Thompson regarding New's handling of cases. Stephens later passed a lie detector test arranged by Connaughton, after which he filed a complaint leading to New's indictment and conviction. Late in October 1983, Alice Thompson contacted the Journal News through New's lawyer and gave a tape-recorded interview on October 27 in which she alleged that Connaughton had offered her and Stephens jobs, a trip to Florida, a restaurant for their parents, and other benefits in exchange for their help in the investigation and to keep the matter quiet. The newspaper's editorial director and a reporter interviewed Connaughton on October 31 for 55 minutes, during which he denied making any promises or quid pro quo offers but acknowledged some speculative discussions about jobs and trips. The Journal News did not interview Stephens, who had been present at the September meeting, nor did it listen to the tapes of that interview despite Connaughton making them available. On November 1, the newspaper published a front-page article reporting Thompson's allegations under the headline "Bribery case witness claims jobs, trip offered." Connaughton filed a diversity action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging defamation. After a four-week trial featuring six days of testimony, three taped interviews, and 56 exhibits, the jury returned special verdicts finding by a preponderance that the article was defamatory and false and by clear and convincing evidence that it was published with actual malice. The jury awarded Connaughton $5,000 in compensatory damages and $195,000 in punitive damages. The district court denied the newspaper's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment after conducting its own review of the record. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to examine the sufficiency of the evidence and the standard of review applied below.
View caseQuinn Quigley, an Amish parent, faced criminal charges for refusing to send his child to high school. During the proceeding the state called the child as a witness and developed her testimony through a series of questions and answers on cross-examination. The exchange established that her religious beliefs aligned with her parents' objections to further public education.
In Green County, Wisconsin, respondents Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller are members of the Old Order Amish religion, and respondent Adin Yutzy is a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church. They and their families reside in Green County. Wisconsin's compulsory school-attendance law required them to cause their children to attend public or private school until reaching age 16. The respondents declined to send their children, ages 14 and 15, to public school after they completed the eighth grade. The children involved were Frieda Yoder, aged 15, Barbara Miller, aged 15, and Vernon Yutzy, aged 14. All had graduated from the eighth grade of public school. On complaint of the school district administrator for the public schools, respondents were charged, tried, and convicted in Green County Court of violating the compulsory-attendance law. They were each fined the sum of five dollars. At trial, respondents defended on the ground that application of the compulsory-attendance law violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial testimony showed that respondents believed, in accordance with the tenets of Old Order Amish communities generally, that their children's attendance at high school, public or private, was contrary to the Amish religion and way of life. The State stipulated that respondents' religious beliefs were sincere. Expert witnesses, including scholars on religion and education such as Dr. John Hostetler and Dr. Donald A. Erickson, testified regarding the relationship of Amish beliefs to school attendance and the impact of compulsory high school attendance on Amish communities. The Wisconsin Circuit Court affirmed the convictions. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding that the compulsory school-attendance law violated respondents' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. On petition of the State of Wisconsin, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The record showed that the Amish have a history dating back to the 16th century Swiss Anabaptists and maintain a way of life emphasizing separation from the world, harmony with nature, and informal learning through doing on the family farm. Respondents presented evidence that an additional one or two years of formal high school education would do little to serve the state's interests in preparing citizens for political participation and self-sufficiency. The Amish have functioned effectively as a self-sufficient community for more than 200 years. There was no evidence in the record that any of the children in this case expressed a desire to attend high school against their parents' wishes.
View caseQuoc Quan and a codefendant were tried together for robbery. The prosecution introduced the codefendant's question-and-answer confession but replaced Quoc Quan's name with the word 'deleted.' The court later held that the redaction still implicated Quoc Quan and required a limiting instruction or severance.
In 1993, Stacey Williams died after a severe beating, prompting Anthony Bell to give a confession to the Baltimore City police in which he stated that he, Kevin Gray, and Jacquin “Tank” Vanlandingham had participated in the beating that resulted in Williams’ death. Vanlandingham later died, leading a Maryland grand jury to indict Bell and Gray for murder, after which the State of Maryland tried them jointly. The trial judge denied Gray’s motion for a separate trial and permitted the State to introduce Bell’s confession into evidence, but ordered the confession redacted so that the police detective who read it into evidence said the word “deleted” or “deletion” whenever Gray’s name or Vanlandingham’s name appeared. Immediately after the police detective read the redacted confession to the jury, the prosecutor asked whether the officer was subsequently able to arrest Mr. Kevin Gray, and the officer responded affirmatively. The State also introduced into evidence a written copy of the confession with those two names omitted, leaving in their place blank white spaces separated by commas. The State produced other witnesses who said that six persons, including Bell, Gray, and Vanlandingham, participated in the beating. Gray testified and denied his participation, while Bell did not testify. When instructing the jury, the trial judge specified that the confession was evidence only against Bell, yet the jury convicted both Bell and Gray, prompting Gray to appeal. Maryland’s intermediate appellate court accepted Gray’s argument and set aside his conviction, but Maryland’s highest court disagreed and reinstated the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the application of Bruton to such redactions.
View caseQuintana Quest testified at trial that she had acted in self-defense. The prosecutor introduced portions of her earlier question-and-answer statement to police that contradicted the trial testimony. The court allowed the prior answers for impeachment after confirming they were voluntary.
On the evening of June 4, 1968, five white United States Marine Lieutenants in formal dress uniforms and a woman named Barbara Kelly entered a hamburger shop in Washington, D.C., around 2:40 a.m. after a night out. They ordered food at the take-out counter and noticed three Black men—appellants Alexander and Murdock and Cornelius Frazier—sitting at the other end of the counter. According to prosecution witnesses, a staring contest between Lieutenant Kramer and Alexander led to Alexander tapping Kramer on the shoulder, asking him to step outside, and making a threat. After a racial epithet from Lieutenant King, Alexander drew a .38 caliber revolver. Murdock then reentered and drew his own revolver, after which shots were fired, killing Lieutenants King and Lesnick and wounding Kramer and Kelly. Alexander, Murdock, and Frazier fled in Alexander's car, with Murdock firing additional shots from the window. They were stopped by police within a few blocks, and two revolvers were recovered from the car floorboard. Defense witnesses Frazier and Murdock testified that the Marines were drunk and aggressive, and Murdock claimed he fired in self-defense fearing for his life. At a joint jury trial in February 1969, both were convicted of carrying a dangerous weapon and four counts of assault with a dangerous weapon; Murdock was also convicted of two counts of second-degree murder. Murdock's trial was bifurcated; after the guilt phase, a separate hearing on criminal responsibility was held in November 1969 before the same jury, which found him criminally responsible. Alexander received consecutive sentences totaling five to twenty-three years, and Murdock twenty years to life. Both appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which heard argument on December 21, 1970, and issued its decision on April 21, 1972.
View caseA court may direct that an offer of proof be presented through a series of questions and answers when evidence has been excluded. This format allows the proponent to create a clear record of the excluded testimony without exposing the jury to inadmissible material.
Supporting sources
Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record, a party need not renew the objection or offer of proof to preserve the claim of error for appeal.
Supporting sources
The format creates a precise record of the questions counsel would have asked and the answers the witness would have given. This record enables an appellate court to determine whether the exclusion was erroneous and whether it affected a substantial right.
Supporting sources
…of the children here concerned differ in any way from those of their parents. Only one of the children testified. The last two questions and answers on her cross-examination accurately sum up her testimony: "Q. So I take it then, Frieda, the only reason you are not going to school, and did not go to school since last September, is…