How to Prepare a Witness for Trial: A Practitioner’s Guide

 Authored by Kevin Wu

One of the most underestimated aspects of trial advocacy is not cross-examination technique or written submissions, but witness preparation. Even strong cases are frequently weakened not by bad facts or bad law, but by witnesses who are anxious, confused, over-helpful, or simply unprepared for the courtroom process.

For lawyers acting in commercial disputes, professional negligence claims, or technically complex litigation, preparing a witness is not about coaching answers. It is about ensuring that the witness understands the process, the boundaries of their role, and the discipline of giving evidence under oath.

This article explains how practitioners should think about witness preparation, and what witnesses themselves should expect when called to testify.

Understanding the Role of a Witness

A witness is not an advocate. Their role is not to “help win the case” or to argue with opposing counsel. Their sole function is to assist the court by giving truthful evidence within the scope of their knowledge.

This distinction is critical. Many professional witnesses, particularly doctors, directors, or senior managers, instinctively want to explain, justify, or persuade. In court, that instinct often works against them. Judges assess credibility not by eloquence, but by credibility, clarity, restraint, and consistency.

The first step in preparation is therefore conceptual: the witness must understand that accuracy matters more than completeness, and honesty more than confidence.

The Witness Statement Is the Evidence

In Malaysian civil trials, the witness statement is not merely a summary. Once admitted, it is the evidence-in-chief. Witness statements will be in a Q&A format, oftentimes prepared by the solicitor with the objective to advance the legal counsel’s case.

When a witness is called, they will first be asked to identify themselves and produce identification, typically their NRIC or passport (for non-Malaysians). The witness will be required to give an oath or affirmation that he or she will testify truthfully. A simple oath will be available in Court in the witness’ preferred language. The witness will then be asked whether they are willing to admit their witness statement into evidence. Upon confirmation, the witness signs the copies of the statement, which are tendered to the court. From that point on, it is taken that the witness has said everything contained in the statement in open court.

This has two practical implications. First, the witness must be fully familiar with the contents of the statement before trial. Second, nothing in the statement should come as a surprise to the witness when it is challenged during cross-examination.

A well-prepared witness does not memorise the statement, but understands its structure, purpose, and key assertions.

What Happens During Cross-Examination

Cross-examination is where most witnesses feel the greatest anxiety, largely because it is unfamiliar and adversarial.

Opposing counsel will typically ask leading questions and will confine those questions to matters already raised in the witness statement or within the witness’s professional expertise. Statements may be put to the witness directly, sometimes forcefully. Questions may be open-ended or tightly framed to elicit a “yes” or “no”.

The most important discipline for a witness at this stage is restraint. A witness should answer only the question asked, and only to the extent of their knowledge. There is no obligation to speculate, reconstruct events from guesswork, or fill gaps for counsel.

It is not a sign of weakness for a witness to say that they do not know, do not remember, or are unsure. On the contrary, judges often view such answers as indicators of honesty. A witness who insists on having an answer to everything, particularly on peripheral matters, risks damaging their credibility and potentially harming the case.

Equally important is the witness’s right to clarity. If a question is unclear, ambiguous, or too fast, the witness is entitled to ask for it to be repeated or rephrased. There is no penalty for doing so.

Witnesses should not

Witnesses should not be disrespectful to any parties, whether the Judge or the opposing counsel. Witnesses should not be combative or avoidant to cross-examination questions. Exhibiting poor attitude and conduct in Court will undermine the witness’ credibility and Judges oftentimes take such conduct into consideration when weighing the witness’ testimony.

Staying Within One’s Expertise

For professional witnesses, especially in medical or technical fields, cross-examination will often test the limits of expertise. Counsel may attempt to push the witness into areas beyond their training or involvement.

Preparation involves drawing clear internal boundaries. The witness must be comfortable saying that a particular matter falls outside their role, their specialty, or their direct knowledge of the facts. Courts respect witnesses who understand where their expertise ends.

What undermines a witness is not a lack of knowledge, but the appearance of overreach.

Re-Examination and Completion of Evidence

Once cross-examination concludes, counsel calling the witness may re-examine. Re-examination is not an opportunity to repeat the witness statement or re-argue the case. It is narrowly confined to clarifying or correcting matters arising from cross-examination.

From the witness’s perspective, this stage is usually brief. After re-examination, the witness is formally released and their role in the proceedings is complete.

At that point, the witness should not discuss their testimony with other witnesses who have yet to testify, as this may raise procedural issues.

Why Proper Witness Preparation Matters

Witness preparation is not about scripting answers or rehearsing testimony. It is about reducing uncertainty, managing expectations, and ensuring that the witness can give evidence calmly and accurately.

For clients, a well-prepared witness reduces risk. 

For lawyers, it preserves the integrity of the case theory. 

For the court, it facilitates a fair and efficient trial.

In complex commercial litigation, the credibility of a single witness can materially influence outcomes. That credibility is built not only on truthfulness, but on preparation.