According to the Institute of Learning and Thinking at Colorado State University, the Socratic Method is a form of critical thinking. The Method is the ability for a person to probe questions out of someone, for example a student, or in the case of law, someone on the legal stand. The Socratic Method lets out the thinking of the student or witness out loud by the constant probing of the teacher or lawyer. In general, the Socratic Method is meant to be a dialogue where the truth about a subject is revealed through constant questioning.
Clarification is a central component in the Socratic Method. Socrates would ponder with his students about aspects of life. However, Socrates would want clarification over any statement his student made about truth, justice, reality, and an assortment of philosophical topics. In law, students are taught to question or stop a witness from talking by asking clarifying statements. "What do you mean by," "are you saying that," and "give me an example" are clarifying statements a lawyer must give to a prosecution or defense witness in order to ascertain the logic of the defense or prosecution. With further clarification, a lawyer can dismantle, invalidate, or give doubt to defense or prosecution testimony through clarification.
The Socratic Method is infamously known for its probing style of questioning. Any statement or testimony made by a defense or prosecution witness may be turned around and pondered more by the lawyer. If a witness states something, the lawyer can ask a hypothetical. The hypothetical is meant to either allow the witness to further prove the statement's point or to trip up the reasoning of the witness. Another probing technique is to take the statement of a witness and ask why the witness thinks that way. Again, probing a testimonial statement is either going to further the point of the witness or discredit the witness, making him look unreliable or his statement illogical.
Often, lawyers will employ an aspect of the Socratic Method that affirms or discredits testimony because of the perspective of a witness. If a witness is an expert in a field, a lawyer might discredit the witness by pondering if the witness's expertise makes her testimony biased. For example, if a prosecution or defense brings in a scientific expert to legitimate aspects of a case, a lawyer can state that the expert has a vested interest in the case for ideological, professional, or personal reasons. A lawyer can also pose questioning to a witness to discredit or cast doubt on testimony. If a witness presents information, a lawyer can ask "Is there another way to look at that information?".
The Socratic Method is also known for bringing an argument to its logical conclusion. For example, if a person argues that a person is innocent of a crime, a lawyer may question the implications of such a defense. Say a person is on trial for murder, but the defense argues that the person has a defect, Defect X, that made her murder. A lawyer can counter by saying that if the murderer is declared innocent, then all people with Defect X will be innocent, too. Hence, the lawyer allows a jury or judge to see that there are far-reaching implications to any argument.