Cross-examination is an opportunity for the defense attorney to question the prosecution's witnesses during a trial. Cross-examination is an effective way for the defense to present evidence by using government witnesses. On cross, the attorney should be asking questions that develop the defense's theory of the case theory of the case.
Full Answer
Generally, cross-examination is limited to matters covered during the direct examination. The attorney may ask leading questions during cross-examination.
Four simple, short answers. The attorney who cross examines you wants to be in control. He wants to tell a story. He wants to control what you say and how you say it. And that's Ok. Why? Because that's what really good trial attorney's do. Cross examination is an opportunity for the opposing attorney to challenge what you've said.
Here are the FOUR ways you can answer questions during cross examination...at least these are the four ways the opposing attorney WANTS YOU TO ANSWER... That's it. Four simple, short answers. The attorney who cross examines you wants to be in control.
During your trial, your lawyer calls you to the witness stand to testify. He spends a great deal of time asking you open-ended questions. "Mrs. Jones, tells us what happened then..." "What did you do next..." "What did he say?" Questions that answer 'who', 'what', 'when', 'where', 'how' and 'why'. Finally, your lawyer is done asking you questions.
During a cross-examination, the opposing party questions the witness. Generally, a witness is initially questioned by the party that called them to the stand on direct examination. Afterwards, the opposing party has the opportunity to question the witness on cross-examination, often using targeted or leading questions.
Cross-examination is an opportunity for the defense attorney to question the prosecution's witnesses during a trial. Cross-examination is an effective way for the defense to present evidence by using government witnesses.
The purpose of cross-examination is to create doubt about the truthfulness of the witness's testimony, especially as it applies to the incidents that are at issue in the case. Cross-examination questions are usually the opposite of direct examination questions.
Cross-examiners attempt to get the witness to say something helpful to their side, or to cast doubt on the witness's testimony by eliciting something that reduces the witness's credibility -- for example, that the witness's eyesight is so poor that she may not have seen an event clearly.
After the cross-examination if the prosecution has some queries then he asks the question from the witness that is called re-examination. The court will examine the witnesses and complainant in the examination of witnesses in warrant trial on the same day after decide any offence is made against the accused or not.
Section 142 does not mention asking leading questions during cross-examination. But, Section 143 states that leading questions can be asked even in cross-examination. Leading questions cannot be asked in examination-in-chief, cross-examination, or re-examination only if objected by the other party.
There are several tips for surviving cross-examination:Remain calm and pleasant throughout the process. ... Take your time in answering the questions. ... It is helpful to avoid too much eye contact with the advocate cross-examining you. ... It is important to be fair to parents. ... If you are unsure about something factual, say so.More items...
Tips for a Successful Cross-ExaminationListen carefully to the prosecutor's question and let him ask his entire question before you answer.When you do answer, answer the question that is being asked, but nothing more. ... Stay calm and don't argue. ... Tell the truth. ... Think before you answer the question. ... Don't guess.More items...•
An accused certainly has under Section 208(2), Criminal P.C., a right to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, but he must exercise that right at the proper time, that is to say, after the close of the examination-in-chief.
Pretrial Stage - discovery process, finding of facts. Trial Stage - seating of the jury, testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs and testimony on behalf of the defendants. Post Trial - concluding arguments, judge's charge to the jury, jury deliberations, announcement of judgment, motions for new trial or appeal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 examination, a judge will have some control over the scope and form of the questions. The judge can stop repetitive questioning and prevent a lawyer from asking leading questions, which imply, suggest, or prompt the witness to give a particular answer. However, a judge won't restrict questions unless the other attorney makes an objection. 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.
The approach a defense attorney takes when cross-examining a witness is a strategical decision that is based on a number of factors.
Before discussing the role of cross-examination in a trial it helps to go over some trial basics. Before a criminal case goes to trial, the State is required to “discover” to the defense any evidence it plans to use against the defendant as well as the names of all witnesses it plans to call to testify at the trial. This allows the defense the opportunity to find out the purpose of a witness’s testimony ahead of time through the use of a discovery tool known as a “deposition.” A deposition occurs outside of the courtroom; however, the witness is put under oath, subjecting the witness to the penalties of perjury for not telling the truth. Both the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney are present. The defense attorney asks the witness questions, as if at trial, to find out how the witness will testify at the subsequent trial. Because a deposition is recorded, and the witness is placed under oath, it can be used to impeach a witness who testifies differently at trial.
In Nebraska contact Petersen Criminal Defense Law 24 hours a day at 402-509-8070.
The defense attorney asks the witness questions, as if at trial, to find out how the witness will testify at the subsequent trial. Because a deposition is recorded, and the witness is placed under oath, it can be used to impeach a witness who testifies differently at trial.
Making a witness appear inconsistent – or even untruthful – is an important goal of cross-examination because a judge or jury is unlikely to put much faith in that witness’s testimony.
This allows the defense the opportunity to find out the purpose of a witness’s testimony ahead of time through the use of a discovery tool known as a “deposition.”. A deposition occurs outside of the courtroom; however, the witness is put under oath, subjecting the witness to the penalties of perjury for not telling the truth.
When you are charged with a criminal offense, one of the most important decisions you will have to make during the prosecution of your case is whether or not to take your case to trial. If you have never been through a criminal trial before, you likely have a number of questions relating to what happens at a trial.
Cross-Examination. When the lawyer for the plaintiff or the government has finished questioning a witness, the lawyer for the defendant may then cross-examine the witness. Cross-examination is generally limited to questioning only on matters that were raised during direct examination.
When a lawyer calls an adverse or hostile witness (a witness whose relationship to the lawyer’s client is such that his testimony is likely to be prejudicial) on direct examination, the lawyer can ask leading questions as on cross-examination.
Opposing counsel may object to certain questions asked on cross-examination if the questions violate the state's laws on evidence or if they relate to matters not discussed during direct examination.
Cross-examination is an opportunity for the defense attorney to question the prosecution's witnesses during a trial. Cross-examination is an effective way for the defense to present evidence by using government witnesses. On cross, the attorney should be asking questions that develop the defense's theory of the case theory of the case.
The right to cross-examination is typically found in a country's constitution or evidence code. Generally, the right guarantees an opportunity to ask questions of government witnesses at trial.
Generally, a defense attorney may ask questions which are relevant to facts and/or biases that relate directly to the testimony of a particular witness. In some jurisdictions cross-examination may be limited to the scope of the prosecution's direct examination.
Cross-examinations are not supposed to be cross. Your job as the attorney is to persuade the fact finder that a particular aspect of the witness' testimony is wrong. Being rude or too adversarial is not the best way to persuade. Only become aggressive when necessary, for instance, if the witness' is non-responsive or has a clear motive.
What is the theory of the case? Here is how three public defenders have defined theory of the case:
The goal of cross-examination is to target the prosecutor's case and to advance the defendant's theory of the case without giving the witness the opportunity to explain away their answers. You want the witness to simply affirm or deny the question you are asking.
Using compound or long questions can be confusing to both the witness and the jury. Short questions will focus the attention of the witness on one fact at a time. Do not simply repeat the direct testimony of the witness. This only reinforces the prosecution's case. Do not start a question with "why", "tell me", "so" or "oh yeah."
Cross-examination for purposes of impeachment is the most important reason for cross-examining a witness. After all, if the witness can be shown to be biased, or incompetent, or to have simply made up his testimony, you not only hurt that witness but the entire case of your opposition.
The most important part of preparing for cross-examination is to be ready to “just say no” to cross-examination. If nothing can be gained, let the jury know that the witness is nothing important - not even worth questioning. On the other hand, if the witness can be hurt by a successful attack on his credibility, or the case helped by the agreement of the witness with certain aspects of the case, or if additional helpful evidence can come in through the witness, then cross-examination is called for. In determining whether or not to cross-examine, ask yourself these four questions, one of which must be answered in the affirmative if cross-examination is to be attempted.
The right to a thorough and sifting cross-examination shall belong to every party as to witnesses called against him.8 This right is considered a substantive right and extends to all
Whereas in state courts there is a guarantee of a thorough and sifting cross-examination, in federal courts “cross examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.”12 Because the scope is within the discretion of the judge, it is often a good idea to get a ruling, at the bench, before going into a topic not covered on direct to avoid having the flow of the cross-examination broken by sustained objections. On the other hand, it is sometimes best to just jump right into the new subject and hope for the best. Keep in mind that there is nothing to prevent you from calling the witness in rebuttal for purposes of cross-examination if the court seeks to limit the scope of your examination.