Re-direct examination is the witness’s opportunity to explain or further develop her answers. Simply direct the witness by leading questions to the topic brought out during cross-examination and ask the witness to explain or further develop her answer. The use of …
The presentation of evidence begins with the calling of witnesses by the attorney. The attorney does the initial questioning of the witness and this is commonly called the direct examination. A successful direct examination can be accomplished by controlling the witness without hampering his/her ability to testify freely, truthfully, and honestly. This balance can only be reached by …
You have called this witness to testify on behalf of your client because this witness can help you establish the elements you need to win your case. Identify the points you want to make and formulate your questions in a manner which allow you to get to those points as quickly as possible. Be sure to stop once you have developed those points sufficiently. Do not bore or confuse the jury with unimportant or irrelevant points.
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.
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.
Many attorneys feel uncomfortable with silence between a witness’s answer and their next question. As a result, those attorneys use verbal crutches such as “um” and “and” to fill this void with sound. 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.
Again, keep in mind that the witness you are cross-examining will try to help your opponent whenever possible. Therefore, if you do not know the answer to a question, do not ask the question unless any answer the witness gives will be favorable to you.
A witness shall be required to answer all relevant questions, even if the witness is a party and the witness’s testimony might further the opposing party’s case . When a question calls for an answer of either yes or no, the witness is ordinarily permitted to explain the answer [iv].
Examination of Witnesses. The presentation of evidence begins with the calling of witnesses by the attorney. The attorney does the initial questioning of the witness and this is commonly called the direct examination. A successful direct examination can be accomplished by controlling the witness without hampering his/her ability to testify freely, ...
Generally, a case will not be taken from the jury or a judgment reversed because an improper question is propounded to a witness where such question is unanswered. Generally, a witnesses cannot state opinions or give conclusions unless they are experts or are especially qualified to do so.
Compound questions which involve several questions are improper and objectionable and such objections shall be properly sustained.
The judge has control over an attorney’s examination of a witness and dictates the form of questions presented to the witness. The judge has wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on questioning at trial based on concerns regarding harassment, prejudice, confusion of issues, a witness’s safety, and conservation of the court’s time.
In the former situation, the notes or memoranda used by the witness are not placed in evidence, but are used to trigger his psychological mechanisms of recognition and recollection, enabling a witness to then testify from the witness’s own memory .
When necessary to refresh a witness’s recollection; and. When encountering an unwilling, reluctant, or recalcitrant witness. It is the duty of a witness to answer questions truthfully during examination. It is common for witnesses to unexpectedly volunteer inadmissible statements. Improper responses shall be stricken.
Lawyers might want to restrain themselves somewhat when cross-examining witnesses for fear of coming across as a bully, but they sometimes determine that being aggressive is the best course of action. They might hope that their confrontational style will fluster the witness or expose a nasty character trait. For example, a prosecutor cross-examining a defendant might take a harsh tone with the goal of creating an inconsistency in testimony or exposing the defendant's temper.
The prohibition against leading questions on direct examination forces lawyers to ask non-suggestive questions instead. So, a prosecutor can't guide the testimony of a prosecution witness too much. The prosecutor has likely spoken to the witness before testimony begins and prepared him or her at least somewhat.
On direct examination, lawyers generally can't ask leading questions. A question is leading if it suggests the answer. For example, "You couldn't see very well, could you?" or, "Did you get to the scene at 8 p.m.?"
Cross-Examination. The other party will also be calling witnesses, once they have questioned them it is your turn. Asking questions of the other parties witness is called cross-examination . You are allowed to ask leading questions. There are 2 reasons to cross –examine a witness:
You will need to question the witnesses you call. This type of questioning is called direct examination. For a direct examination you will need to ask open questions (questions that allow for explanations.) Open questions usually begin with words like who, what, why, where, how, tell me about, or describe. The opposite of an open question is a leading question. Leading questions as the name indicates leads the answerer to a particular answer. They are usually answered with a yes or no. Leading questions allow you to control what the witness talks about and often helps you get the witness to give a specific answer. This is why you are not allowed to ask your own witnesses leading questions.
The opposite of an open question is a leading question . Leading questions as the name indicates leads the answerer to a particular answer. They are usually answered with a yes or no. Leading questions allow you to control what the witness talks about and often helps you get the witness to give a specific answer.
After you have presented your opening statement you will be asked to call your witnesses. The other side will also be calling witnesses. You will need to question your witnesses and will be given the opportunity to question the other party’s witnesses. Before your trial you will want to think about questions to ask the witnesses. There are 2 ways to question witnesses:
There are 2 reasons to cross –examine a witness: To get evidence that supports your case. You’ll want to get the witness to agree to facts you present. To discredit the witness. This approach is used so the judge will minimize or disregard evidence or comments that do not support your case.
Organize your questions according to chronology or issue (e.g. questions about debts then questions about child care…etc.)
Asking 2 questions are the same time (it will be unclear which one the witness is answering) Being too broad – Don’t ask something like “what has happened in your relationship with your former spouse”. Asking them to give their opinions – unless they are an expert witness. Judge’s Tip:
As part of their trial strategy, lawyers will call their witnesses in an order that’s most helpful for convincing the jury of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. However, the judge has the ultimate say over when witnesses testify.
Criminal defendants have the right under the Sixth Amendment’s “confrontation clause” to be present when witnesses are testifying against them and to cross-examine those witnesses. There may be exceptions, however, when witnesses aren’t available to testify at trial. Depending on the circumstances, certain types of reliable statements from unavailable witnesses might be admitted as evidence, such as previous testimony at a preliminary hearing or deposition where the defendant’s attorney was able to question the witness.
Before the trial, as part of the evidence-sharing process known as “ discovery ,” defendants are normally entitled to receive the names and statements of the witnesses that the prosecution plans to call (although prosecutors may not always have to reveal the names of confidential informants). Defendants also have a right to any information that prosecutors have about the identity or whereabouts of other witnesses who might be able to provide relevant testimony for the defense.
Criminal trials follow the same basic order. Following opening statements, the prosecution presents its evidence, including its witnesses. For each witness, there may be two or more steps to the testimony: 1 Direct examination. First, the prosecutor will ask questions intended to bring out the witness’s story. 2 Cross-examination. The defendant’s lawyer will then question the witness in an effort to discredit or at least shed doubt on the testimony. Generally, questions should address matters covered during the direct examination, but the attorney may also ask questions related to the witness’s credibility. 3 Redirect and recross examination. After the cross-examination, the prosecutor may ask the witness more questions, usually to clarify parts of the testimony or address issues that came up during the cross. Then, the defense attorney also has another chance at further questioning, usually to discuss new subjects discussed during the redirect.
Witnesses are a critical part of criminal trials. Strong testimony from even one good witness can sometimes make or break the prosecution’s case. Other than expert witnesses—who give opinions based on specialized knowledge like forensics and DNA evidence—witnesses testify about what they’ve personally seen, heard, or observed.
That personal knowledge is one reason witness testimony can be so persuasive to juries. Sometimes, witness testimony is the only evidence that places the defendant at (or far from) the crime scene. Other times, witnesses provide the context that supports or undermines other evidence. Either way, there are general rules for how ...
How Witness Testimony Proceeds at Trial. Criminal trials follow the same basic order. Following opening statements, the prosecution presents its evidence, including its witnesses. For each witness, there may be two or more steps to the testimony: Direct examination.
The rationale for this suggestion was that witnesses can blurt out all kinds of information, and because such 'blurts' can contain communication undesirable for one side of a conflict, it is often information a lawyer might not want a judge and/or jury to hear.
Lawyers are often told to never ask a question to which they don’t know the answer. What do they do if a witness responds to a question with an unexpected answer?
The plaintiff initially decides where to bring the suit, but in some cases, the defendant can seek to change the court. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases. A federal court in one state, for example, can usually only decide a case that arose from actions in that state.
To make such a request is "to appeal" or "to take an appeal.". Both the plaintiff and the defendant can appeal, and the party doing so is called the appellant. Appeals can be made for a variety of reasons including improper procedure and asking the court to change its interpretation of the law.
Federal criminal juries consist of 12 persons. Federal civil juries consist of six persons. plaintiff - The person who files the complaint in a civil lawsuit. plea - In a criminal case, the defendant's statement pleading "guilty" or "not guilty" in answer to the charges in open court.
bail - Security given for the release of a criminal defendant or witness from legal custody (usually in the form of money) to secure his/her appearance on the day and time appointed.
A. acquittal - Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. affidavit - A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making it. Affidavits must be notarized or administered by an officer of the court with such authority.
appellate - About appeals; an appellate court has the power to review the judgment of another lower court or tribunal. arraignment - A proceeding in which an individual who is accused of committing a crime is brought into court, told of the charges, and asked to plead guilty or not guilty.
charge to the jury - The judge's instructions to the jury concerning the law that applies to the facts of the case on trial. chief judge - The judge who has primary responsibility for the administration of a court. The chief judge also decides cases, and the choice of chief judges is determined by seniority.
Courtroom Procedures: Questions and Objections. Both the Crown Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel are allowed to ask questions of witnesses during the trial. They are presented in court by either the Crown or Defence in order to help prove their case/argument.
Objections: The Crown Prosecutor or the Defence Counsel may object to a question or the admission of an exhibit or evidence. The judge may ask the person “on what rule of evidence are you relying on?” or “on what grounds are you making your objection.”. Lawyers may respond to the judge or to an objection and attempt to justify their ...
A lawyer must always stand when addressing the judge. Proper etiquette in a courtroom means that you always “rise” (stand up) when addressing the court. A Lawyer would begin an objection by stating: “I object your honour…” or. “The Crown objects your honour…” or. “Objection your Honour, the Crown/Defence is…”.
The Lawyer harasses, abuses, insults, or intimidates the witness, or is forcefully pursuing a point unnecessarily. (f) repeating (Repetition) or wasting the court’s time: A question or answer is repeated multiple times or it takes too much time to think of questions/answers. (g) coaching the witness.
Leading questions suggest the answer in the question or ask for a yes or no answer.
Unless the witness is qualified as an expert witness (or is identified as a character witness), (s)he should not give opinions or conclusions that they are not qualified to give or is beyond their knowledge. They can speak to their own perspectives of the event. (e) badgering or harassing the witness.
After stating an objection a lawyer must provide grounds (meaning a reason) for the objection.
In the context of clients, these skills are important for learning about the details of the case, confirming information, and avoiding misunderstandings.
Leading questions are typically closed-ended lines of inquiry that result in the interviewer upholding the interviewee’s opinion. For instance, “when’s the soonest you can get me the report today?” already assumes the report can be ready today, leaving it more difficult for the interviewee to suggest an alternative timeline.
The purpose of rhetorical questions is not to elicit answers, but rather, to express key ideas or opinions in an engaging way.
Rhetorical questions are useful for persuading a listener by drawing them in, rather than simply telling or stating an opinion as fact, with no opportunity for engagement.
Leading questions can be useful to persuade one or more interviewees to a specific point of view or course of action. Of course, leading questions are not allowed during direct examination, but are permitted during depositions. Outside of trial and deposition contexts, using this technique to influence business decisions may not be ethical, and can harm relationships in the long run.
Open-ended questions typically elicit more information, while closed-ended questions can be answered with one word or phrase. For instance, “Tell me what happened that night” is an open-ended question that might lead to your gathering plentiful information from the interviewee, whereas “where was the party” is a closed-ended question that can be answered directly with the address of the event, with no other detail.
Probing questions are useful if you need more information to clarify a situation, or if you need to sort out an issue by uncovering layers of details, opinions, or feelings.