Cross-examination

In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination (in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and Pakistan known as examination-in-chief) and may be followed by a redirect (re-examination in Ireland, England, Scotland, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Pakistan). 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' testimony discussed in redirect by the opponent. Depending on the judge's discretion, opponents are allowed multiple opportunities to redirect and recross examine witnesses (may vary by jurisdiction).

This article is about the court proceeding. For the policy debate concept, see Structure of policy debate. For the research methodology, see Triangulation (social science).
Chief prosecutor, James M. McHaney, examines defendant Gerhard Rose at the Doctors' trial
Evidence
Part of the law series
Types of evidence
Relevance
Authentication
Witnesses
Hearsay and exceptions
Other common law areas

Variations by jurisdiction

In the United States federal Courts, a cross-examining attorney is typically not permitted to ask questions that do not pertain to the testimony offered during direct examination, but most state courts do permit a lawyer to cross-examine a witness on matters not raised during 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 be hostile, cross-examination does permit leading questions. 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

Cross-examination is a key component of a trial and the topic is given substantial attention during courses on Trial Advocacy.[2] The opinions of a jury or 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 the closing argument is often considered the deciding moment of a trial, effective cross-examination wins trials.[3]

Attorneys anticipate hostile witness' 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 he will repeat any admissions made by witnesses that favor their case. Indeed, in the United States, cross-examination is seen as a core part of the entire adversarial system of 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 is the jury selection, in which attorneys will attempt to include jurors from whom they feel they can get a favorable response or at the least 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.

gollark: > 5. .net platform is cracker / hacker friendly Any program running on the client can INEVITABLY be reverse-engineered. Do not rely on it not experiencing that, because you will fail.
gollark: > 4. XAML - the incredibly messy UI technologyPerhaps, but this is not a *language* thing.
gollark: > 3. Garbage collector and memory leak detection tools?Again, not sure if anyone actually runs into this sort of issue in practice.
gollark: > 1. Performance penalties.> [some rambling about C++].NET is generally pretty much *fast enough*. If your application somehow hits performance bottlenecks, rewrite the slow bits in native code, don't just immediately take a development speed hit.> 2. Need to interoperate with C++ / Native (Windows) API’sI don't know how often you actually need to bind to a native API not wrapped by .NET or a third-party library, but you can do it, it's just annoying - but probably less than using C++ for everything!
gollark: This is outrageous pro-C++ anti-C# propaganda.

See also

References
  1. Ehrhardt, Charles W. and Stephanie J. Young, "Using Leading Questions During Direct Examination" Archived 2008-11-03 at the Wayback Machine, Florida State University Law Review, 1996. Accessed November 26, 2008.
  2. Lubet, Steven; Modern Trial Advocacy, NITA, New York, NY 2004 pp. 83 et. seq. ISBN 1556818866
  3. Mahoney, Kevin J (2008). Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination. Costa Mesa, California: James Publishing. ISBN 158012125X.
  4. Dreier, A.S.; Strategy, Planning & Litigating to Win; Conatus, Boston, MA, 2012, pp. 79-85; ISBN 0615676952
  5. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974).

Further reading
  • City Law School (2007). Advocacy 2007/2008 (Blackstone Bar Manual). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-921220-1.
  • Du Cann, Richard (1993). The Art of the Advocate. London: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-017931-3.
  • Evans, K. (1993). The Golden Rules of Advocacy. London: Blackstone Press. ISBN 1-85431-259-6.
  • Morley, I (2005). The Devil's Advocate. London: Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN 0-421-91480-7.
  • Ross, D. (2005). Advocacy. London: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-61117-2.
  • Wellman, F. (2007) [1903]. The Art of Cross-Examination. Standard Publications. ISBN 1-59462-647-2.
  • Mahoney, K. (2008). Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination. James Publishing Company. ISBN 978-1-58012-125-5.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.