Cross-examination
 | This article has multiple issues.Please helpimprove itor discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
| Evidence |
|---|
| Part of thelawseries |
| Types of evidence |
| Relevance |
| Authentication |
| Witnesses |
| Hearsayand exceptions |
| Othercommon lawareas |
Inlaw,cross-examinationis theinterrogationof awitnessby one's opponent. It is preceded bydirect examination(known as examination-in-chief inIreland,theUnited Kingdom,Australia,Canada,South Africa,IndiaandPakistan) and may be followed by aredirect(known as re-examination in the aforementioned countries). A redirect examination, performed by the attorney or pro se individual who performed the direct examination, clarifies the witness' testimony provided during cross-examination including any subject matter raised during cross-examination but not discussed during direct examination. Recross examination addresses the witness'testimonydiscussed in redirect by the opponent. Depending on thejudge's discretion, opponents are allowed multiple opportunities to redirect and recross examine witnesses (this may vary by jurisdiction).
Variations by jurisdiction
[edit]In theUnited States federal courts,a cross-examiningattorneyis generally limited by Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the "subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness's credibility". The rule also permits the trial court, in its discretion, to "allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination". Manystate courtsdo permit a lawyer to cross-examine a witness on matters not raised during direct examination, though California restricts cross-examination to "any matter within the scope of the direct examination". Similarly, courts in England, South Africa, Australia, and Canada allow a cross-examiner to exceed the scope of direct examination.
Since a witness called by the opposing party is presumed to behostile,leading questionsare allowed on cross-examination. A witness called by a direct examiner, on the other hand, may only be treated as hostile by that examiner after being permitted to do so by the judge, at the request of that examiner and as a result of the witness being openly antagonistic and/or prejudiced against the party that called them.[1]
Affecting the outcome of jury trials
[edit]Cross-examination is a key component of atrialand the topic is given substantial attention during courses ontrial advocacy.[2]The opinions of ajuryor judge are often changed if cross-examination casts doubt on the witness. On the other hand, a credible witness may reinforce the substance of their original statements and enhance the judge's or jury's belief. Though theclosing argumentis often considered the deciding moment of a trial, effective cross-examination wins trials.[3]
Attorneys anticipate hostile witnesses' responses during pretrial planning, and often attempt to shape the witnesses' perception of the questions to draw out information helpful to the attorney's case.[4]Typically during an attorney's closing argument, they will repeat any admissions made by witnesses that favor their case. In the United States, cross-examination is seen as a core part of the entireadversarial systemof justice, in that it "is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested."[5]Another key component affecting a trial outcome isjury selection,in which attorneys will attempt to include jurors from whom they feel they can get a favorable response or at the least an unbiased fair decision. So while there are many factors affecting the outcome of a trial, the cross-examination of a witness will often influence an open-minded unbiased jury searching for the certainty of facts upon which to base their decision.
See also
[edit]- Litigation strategy– high level plan to achieve the overarching goal of a lawsuit
- Testimony– Solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter
- Trial advocacy– Improving effectiveness of advocates
- Witness impeachment– Process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial
References
[edit]- ^Ehrhardt, Charles W. and Stephanie J. Young,"Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination"Archived2008-11-03 at theWayback Machine,Florida State University Law Review, 1996. Accessed November 26, 2008.
- ^Lubet, Steven;Modern Trial Advocacy,NITA, New York, NY 2004 pp. 83 et. seq.ISBN1556818866
- ^Mahoney, Kevin J (2008).Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination.Costa Mesa, California: James Publishing.ISBN978-1580121255.
- ^Dreier, A.S.;Strategy, Planning & Litigating to Win;Conatus, Boston, MA, 2012, pp. 79-85;ISBN0615676952
- ^Davis v. Alaska,415U.S.308(1974).
Further reading
[edit]
- City Law School(2007).Advocacy 2007/2008 (Blackstone Bar Manual).Oxford:Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-921220-0.
- Du Cann, Richard (1993).The Art of the Advocate.London: Penguin.ISBN0-14-017931-3.
- Evans, K. (1993).The Golden Rules of Advocacy.London:Blackstone Press.ISBN1-85431-259-6.
- Morley, I (2005).The Devil's Advocate.London:Sweet & Maxwell.ISBN0-421-91480-7.
- Ross, D. (2005).Advocacy.London:Cambridge University Press.ISBN0-521-61117-2.
- Wellman, Francis L. (1919).The Art of Cross-Examination: with Cross-Examination of Some Important Witnesses in Some Celebrated Cases(New and Enlarged ed.). New York & London: The Macmillan Company.Retrieved3 March2021– viaInternet Archive.
- Wellman, F. (2007) [1903].The Art of Cross-Examination.Standard Publications.ISBN978-1-59462-647-0.
- Mahoney, K. (2008).Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination.James Publishing Company.ISBN978-1-58012-125-5.
| Authority control databases:National |
|---|
