Also, opposing counsel gets to use notes while you don't. In my case, I was questioned about emails that, printed, where most of a ream of paper. They where trying to trip me up, get me confused, etc, and I was essentially being quizzed on the emails, content, and timeline of very stressful events that occurred over two years -- all without notes. I really wanted to point out that I write things in emails because my memory is fallible. That's why date stamped written records are useful.
My lawyer also had me answer all date questions in a formula, again to avoid misstating things. Instead of saying, eg, X happened in August, I had to say X happened around august, or around fall, etc. It seemed like clarity was your enemy -- opposing counsel could get you to make mistakes on minor details (did X happen at the end August or the beginning of September? who knows; that's why I use a calendar) and then use that to claim the major details where unreliable.
* From the NYTimes article introducing the video:
In this short film, I sought to creatively reinterpret the original events. (I’ve not been able to locate any original video recordings, so I’m unsure how closely my actors’ appearance and delivery resembles the original participants.) My primary rule was the performance had to be verbatim -- no words could be modified or changed from the original legal transcripts. Nor did I internally edit the document to compress time. What you see is, word for word, an excerpt from what the record shows to have actually unfolded. However, I did give the actors creative range to craft their performances. As such, this is a hybrid of documentary and fiction. We’ve taken creative liberties in the staging and performance to imbue the material with our own perspectives.