The crux of an adversarial system as practiced in Malaysian courts is the adducing of evidence through the oral tradition. This usually involves examinations in three stages. A direct examination is conducted by the party that initiates the action, while a cross examination is carried out by the opposing side. In the event where a re-examination is necessary, the initiating party can re-examine his witness to ‘repair’ the damage done during the cross-examination. Institutionalized courtroom questioning involves questions posed by the lawyers with the answers to be provided for by the witnesses. Through strategic questioning therefore, a witness summoned to court by a litigating party will establish and then strengthen the version of the party that summon him. This paper is based on a case study of a criminal case observed at the Kuala Lumpur Criminal High Court 1, will delineate and then discuss several strategies employed by a counsel during the direct examination of an expert witness, in his effort to build a narrative that is both credible and believable.