Banned words in court

From Language Log:

The latest development is that a number of courts in the US are now forbidding lawyers and witnesses to use certain words during trials. Words like "rape," "victim," "crime scene," "killer," "murder," "drunk," "homicide," "embezzle," "fraud," and "robbery" are now not allowed in some courtrooms. Language engineering like this usually has a social or political basis. In this case it's more a problem of trying to treat the accuser and the accused fairly. District Attorneys want to keep on using words like these as they prosecute alleged criminals, while some defense attorneys claim that using such words violates the presumption of innocence that has been held dear by the legal system. They call the forbidden words, "loaded terms."

If I were testifying in court and I was forbidden from using my first choice words, I would very much want to the judge and jury to know that the words I was using aren't my first choice because my first choice words were banned. I can do this when I'm speaking comfortably and confidently. (A side-effect of translation brain is that half the time I think there's a better word for what I'm trying to say, so indicating that the words I'm using aren't the best words to describe the concept has become a natural part of my speech patterns.) But would I be comfortable and confident in a courtroom? Given that I'm shy and I've never been in court before and I'd know that I'm under oath and my words would be recorded for public record, I seriously doubt it.

From later in the article (bolding is mine):

"Using your own words" isn't all that common in trials I've experienced. Among other things, you can't introduce your own topics, you have to answer the opposing lawyer's questions according to the form in which they are asked (usually yes/no questions, or worse, tag-questions), and you have to be ready to be interrupted at any time. Testifying requires a witness to learn a new set of communication skills, many of which can seem counterintuitive. Doing this can be daunting for anyone not trained in the special culture of the courtroom.

I've seen this on TV, when the lawyer very loudly and in-your-face-ly insists that the witness answer with a simple yes or no. But in the oath you take at the beginning, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So what happens if answering with a simple yes or a simple no does not tell the whole truth, or does not meet the nothing but the truth condition? What do you do then? Does this mean I should find out if perjury or contempt of court gets you in bigger trouble before I'm ever called upon to testify in court?