"Never Ask a Question You don't Know the Answer to."
This is one of the first few rules I read on the textbook on cross-examinations. I don't remember anymore the author and I don't have time to search for it again. Just posting it here as "the rule" that doesn't suit my idiosyncrasies.
A while ago, I just asked whatever question I felt asking, without thinking about the consequence. I just told myself that if the answer is not favorable to my client, I still have the freedom whether to transition to another topic or make a follow-up question (to test the truthfulness of the witness' answer).
My point here is, I should have the absolute freedom on what question to ask, how to frame it, when to do it, and so on and so forth.
Thus, when I prepare for cross-examinations, I don't write full questions. I only write the topics that my desired questions would revolve around. So I can ask WHATEVER QUESTION I wanted.
In the end, this method works way, way better for me, regardless of what answer I actually elicited, whether advantageous or just a little less impactful (but not necessarily damaging).
Today, I just ended another beautiful and satisfying cross-examination, thanks to myself for basically violating the number 1 rule on cross-examinations. XD