I'm reviewing the transcript of a cross-examination of a retired law enforcement officer who has been offered up to testify regarding the "red flags" characteristic of a "pill mill." It is not going all that well for the witness; he's already been forced to concede that the notion of characteristic red flags is bullshit:
The red flags, they fluctuate. Again, they’re fluid.
The cross-examination continues, the witness is getting more and more combative and nonresponsive, and so the trial judge feels moved to help out the witness when the witness interrupts the defense attorney by admonishing the defense attorney not to interrupt the witness and then, after the witness has completed his answer, the defense attorney can ask another question:
Defense Attorney: I’m not talking about the underlying activity. I'm talking about your red flags. You sat here and said –
Witness: The red flags are the underlying --
Judge: Hold on. Hold on. Don’t talk over each other.
Witness: Yes, sir.
Judge: Allow the witness to answer, or if you want to follow up with a question, you can do that.
The witness realizes that he has done just what the judge says not to do -- the witness has interrupted and talked over the defense attorney -- but, as it turns out, the judge has heard something else, the defense attorney talking over the witness, so it is the defense attorney that gets admonished and lectured briefly about how to conduct the examination properly.