court language
What is the difference between &quot;is&quot; and &quot;isn&#39;t&quot; when asking a question?
<p>This kind of question has parallels in <a href="https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/351266/is-not-having-vs-isnt-having-meaninig-difference">here</a> and <a href="https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/202177/using-do-not-and-dont-i-do-not-think-of-it">here</a>, although my question differs from both.</p>
<p>In the latter, the question focused on the difference in context of a statement.</p>
<p>But in the former, the question is nearly the same as mine,  but the question is closed,  and neither the answer nor commentary seemed satisfactory.</p>
<p>And in all cases,  no one sourced their answer / comment. And still, I'm looking for a slightly different answer.</p>
<p>I had the opportunity to observe a court proceeding. There was a whole line of questioning that was asked and answered,  yet I did not know what the responding person meant. At all.</p>
<p>About two dozen questions were asked by the prosecutor that began &quot;isn't it true...&quot;, and the respondent answered &quot;yes&quot;.</p>
<p>So for example,  &quot;isn't it true that you went to work that morning&quot;.</p>
<p>If the guy left for work,  and was telling the truth to the prosecutor,  he should truthfully answer &quot;no&quot;.  Why? Because if the question were phrased in the affirmative,  he should answer in the affirmative. But the question was asked in the negative, as in &quot;is it not true that you went to work&quot;, or &quot;is it untrue that you went to work&quot;.</p>
<p>So he should answer &quot;no&quot;, because it was not untrue that he left for work. Yes?</p>
<p>Later, I found the prosecutor asked questions in the affirmative. This suggested to me that there might have been some sort of Perry Mason word play going on, but I can't be sure.</p>
<p>Or am I reading too much into this,  and negative questions mean the same thing as affirmative questions?</p>
<p>It would be nice if a sourced answer can be provided.</p>

<p>&quot;Isn't it true that X&quot; is a very common way, in court examination, of asking &quot;is it true that X?&quot; For example:</p>
<p>Isn't it true that you went to the bank that morning?</p>
<p>If the witness did indeed go to the bank on the morning specified, the truthful and responsive answer is &quot;Yes&quot;.  An answer of &quot;No&quot; would indicate that the person did <strong>not</strong> go to the bank on that morning.</p>
<p>This form of question (Isn't it true that ...&quot;) is more often used during cross examination, because it tends to be perceived as more confrontational.</p>
<p>I would say that even in general, non-legal, English language usage, &quot;Isn't it true that X?&quot; simply means &quot;Is X true?&quot;, the negative form does not in this case change the meaning at all,  but that goes beyond the scope of Law.se.  I would have made that answer on ELL.SE or ELU.se.</p>

<p>The legal part of the question relates to &quot;leading questions&quot;, whose use in testimony can be limited, for example <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_611" rel="nofollow noreferrer">FRE 611(c)</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as
necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily, the court
should allow leading questions:</p>
<p>(1) on cross-examination; and</p>
<p>(2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a
witness identified with an adverse party.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the profession, &quot;leading question&quot; is understood to refer to one where the form of the question suggests the answer.</p>
<p>Witness confusion over &quot;what is being asked&quot; comes from a fact about language and not law, that people have problems with De Morgan's Law in logic and the difference between implication versus entailment. Some of this confusion is encoded in law, such as the &quot;and/or&quot; rule where and means or and or means and, when necessary to make sense of a law.</p>
