T or F: The presentation of one's case by asking questions of a witness is called a direct examination. Is asking questions of the opposing attorney's witnesses Cross examination:
Thus, the opposing attorney will object that a question is "leading," and if so the judge will sustain (uphold) the objection and prohibit the question in that form.
Once the plaintiff's attorney has called all of the plaintiff's witnesses, the defendant's attorney begins calling witnesses. The same procedure is followed as in the plaintiff's presentation of witnesses.
If the plaintiff's attorney is leading the witness, then the attorney for the "defendant" (the person being sued) can object to the question. After listening to the objection, the judge will either sustain (grant) or overrule (deny) it and allow the witness to answer the question.
When you question your own witnesses, this is called direct examination. On direct examination, you will usually only be allowed to ask open-ended questions that do not lead your witnesses in a certain way or influence their answers.
Steps in a Trial Lawyers for the plaintiff or the government begin the presentation of evidence by calling witnesses . The questions they ask of the witnesses are direct examination. Direct examination may elicit both direct and circumstantial evidence.
Search Legal Terms and Definitions Direct examination is interrogation by the attorney who called the witness, and cross-examination is questioning by the opposing attorney.
By Micah Schwartzbach, Attorney. "Direct" examination refers to a lawyer's questions of his or her own witness. For example, in a robbery case, the prosecution might call to testify a witness who claims that the defendant is the culprit. The prosecution's questioning of that witness is direct examination.
The direct examination or examination-in-chief is one stage in the process of adducing evidence from witnesses in a court of law. Direct examination is the questioning of a witness by the lawyer/side/party that called such witness in a trial.
At trial, witnesses are called, sworn to tell the truth and then answer the questions asked by the attorneys. When an attorney calls the witness and asks questions, this is known as direction examination. After the attorney completes his or her questioning, the other party's attorney can ask questions.
Voir dire is the process used by the parties to select a fair and impartial jury. During voir dire, the jury panel is questioned by both parties' lawyers. The questions are intended to help the lawyers in the jury selection process. After voir dire, the jury is selected from the panel. Related Tags.
Voir dire (/ˈvwɑːr dɪər/; often /vɔɪr daɪər/; from an Anglo-Norman phrase meaning literally "to see to say" or better translated "see what will be said") is a legal phrase for a variety of procedures connected with jury trials.
Examination refers to an interrogation, inspection, a questioning, or a search. During court trials, examination refers to an interrogation of a witness to determine the testimony of their statement.
Definition. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.
You must ask questions beginning with words such as Who, What, Where, When, Why, How, Describe, Tell, Explain, etc. You should ask questions that allow the witness to provide her own answer.
A discussion is defined as consideration of an issue in open and usually informal debate; a conversation; an exchange of views on some topic.
The same procedure is followed as in the plaintiff's presentation of witnesses. The defendant's attorney conducts direct examination of the witnesses, and the plaintiff's attorney will conduct cross-examinations.
During direct exams, attorneys can ask witnesses to identify demonstrative evidence, such as documents and photographs and/or to explain what they saw, heard, or did in relation to the case at hand. For example, a plaintiff's attorney in a car accident personal injury lawsuit may call a bystander to testify as to what he or she saw just before, during, and/or after the accident, including what the weather was like, what happened during the accident, and any other details the witness remembers from the day.
After this, the opposing attorney can conduct a final recross examination of the witness, which is limited to the subjects brought up during the redirect.
The purpose of a direct examination is to get the witness to testify about facts that support the plaintiff's case. Generally, a witness can't give an opinion or draw conclusions from the evidence unless that person has been qualified as an ...
During cross-examination, the attorney tries to undermine or impeach the witness's credibility by showing that the witness is not reliable or that the witness may have misstated something or even lied during the direct examina tion. For example, if the witness said one thing in an accident report or during a deposition and then testified differently at trial, the defendant's attorney can refer to the previous statements and show inconsistencies in the story.
Another way to undermine the witness's credibility is to show that the witness has a stake in the outcome of the case, which might influence the testimony.
After the plaintiff's attorney completes the direct examination, the defendant's attorney gets to cross-examine the witness. Cross-examination is a fundamental right in the American system of justice. Generally, cross-examination is limited to matters covered during the direct examination. The attorney may ask leading questions during cross-examination.
You are calling this witness because she supports at least some, if not all, aspects of your case. Therefore, you want the jury to see this witness and hear what she has to say.
Use concise, leading questions that for the most part elicit yes or no responses. Organize your questions so that they build to an important point. The last question of a series of questions should make the point very clear. Stop for a moment to gather your thoughts and to let the jury have an opportunity to appreciate the point and its significance. Then move on to your next point. Keep the witness guessing. Move from point to point in an order that keeps your thought process hidden. If the witness does not know where you are going with your questioning, you are more likely to catch the witness off guard and get the answer you desire.
First, leading questions are not allowed on direct examination except in limited circumstances such as in the case of an adverse or hostile witness or a very young witness. Second, the use of leading questions will have the negative effect of shifting the jury’s focus from the witness and her answers to you and your questions. Finally, the use of leading questions reduces the credibility of the witness. If you use leading questions on a regular basis, it will be as if you are testifying, not the witness. Even if opposing counsel and the judge allow you to use leading questions, the jury will not appreciate this approach and will no doubt question the credibility of the witness.
In reality, when these sounds are used on a regular basis they only serve to distract the jury. Remember, moments of silence between a witness’s answer and your next question are acceptable. In fact, these moments of silence allow the jury to absorb the witness’s testimony and its significance.
Cross-examination has essentially two purposes. The first and primary purpose of cross-examination is to elicit testimony that supports your case . The second purpose, which is discussed in more detail below, is to attack the credibility of the witness or the witness’s testimony.
Use exhibits during direct examination to prove or emphasize points, explain testimony, and make the examination more interesting. Jurors appreciate the use of exhibits. Be sure not to block the view of the jury when using an exhibit.
The jury must believe the witness. To establish the credibility of the witness, develop those aspects of her background that show she is honest and qualified. For expert witnesses, establish the witness’ qualifications to show that the witness has the knowledge which forms the basis of her opinion testimony. Cases often boil down to a battle of the experts. When one expert witness is more qualified in the eyes of the jury than the other expert witness, the case often turns on that determination. For fact witnesses, be sure to establish that the witness had the opportunity to know the facts she claims to know. For example, establish that an eyewitness to a motor vehicle collision had the “opportunity” to observe the collision. Establish that the witness’s view was unobstructed and that the witness was in a place at a time that allowed her to view the relevant events.