“The Quest to Normalize Questments” explores the use of “questments”—a hybrid of questions and statements—in cross-examination, advocating for their normalization as an effective trial tool. While cross-examination is a vital aspect of the adversarial trial system, governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, courts remain inconsistent in recognizing questments as valid leading questions. The article examines the linguistic basis of questions, legal precedent supporting questments in plea colloquies and police interrogations, and the persuasive advantages questments offer in improving clarity and enhancing trial advocacy.

By analyzing the power of questments in shaping trial narratives, the article argues that their rejection in some courtrooms is unwarranted and counterproductive. Questments streamline questioning, increase witness accountability, and allow attorneys to engage juries with a more memorable, rhetorical style. As long as trials remain adversarial, questments should be an essential tool in litigators’ arsenal, ensuring a more effective, persuasive cross-examination.