Cross-examination

Last updated
Chief prosecutor James M. McHaney examines defendant Gerhard Rose at the Doctors' Trial. Chief prosecutor, James M. McHaney, examines defendant Gerhard Rose at the Doctors trial (cropped).jpg
Chief prosecutor James M. McHaney examines defendant Gerhard Rose at the Doctors' Trial.

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

Contents

Variations by jurisdiction

In the United States federal courts, a cross-examining attorney is 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". Many state courts do 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 be hostile, leading questions are 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

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 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 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 jury 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

Related Research Articles

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. Direct examination is usually performed to elicit evidence in support of facts which will satisfy a required element of a party's claim or defense.

A hostile witness, also known as an adverse witness or an unfavorable witness, is a witness at trial whose testimony on direct examination is either openly antagonistic or appears to be contrary to the legal position of the party who called the witness. This concept is used in the legal proceedings in the United States, and analogues of it exist in other legal systems in Western countries.

A leading question is a question that suggests a particular answer and contains information the examiner is looking to have confirmed. The use of leading questions in court to elicit testimony is restricted in order to reduce the ability of the examiner to direct or influence the evidence presented. Depending on the circumstances, leading questions can be objectionable or proper.

Redirect examination, in the United States, is the questioning of a witness who has already provided testimony under oath in response to direct examination as well as cross examination by the opponent. On redirect, the attorney offering the witness will ask additional questions that attempt to rehabilitate the witness's credibility, or otherwise mitigate deficiencies identified and explored by the opponent on cross. For example, the opponent might elicit on cross-examination an admission that the witness did not directly perceive every single part of the events at issue; the proponent will attempt on redirect to establish that the witness perceived enough of those events that the finder of fact can draw reasonable inferences as to the gaps where the witness's perception was obstructed.

In law, a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what they know or claim to know.

A deposition in the law of the United States, or examination for discovery in the law of Canada, involves the taking of sworn, out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that may be reduced to a written transcript for later use in court or for discovery purposes. Depositions are commonly used in litigation in the United States and Canada. They are almost always conducted outside court by the lawyers themselves, with no judge present to supervise the examination.

Testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scottsboro Boys</span> Racism-based miscarriage of justice

The Scottsboro Boys were nine African American male teenagers accused in Alabama of raping two white women in 1931. The landmark set of legal cases from this incident dealt with racism and the right to a fair trial. The cases included a lynch mob before the suspects had been indicted, all-white juries, rushed trials, and disruptive mobs. It is commonly cited as an example of a legal injustice in the United States legal system.

Voir dire is a legal term for procedures during a trial that help a judge decide certain issues:

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.

Trial advocacy is the branch of knowledge concerned with making attorneys and other advocates more effective in trial proceedings. Trial advocacy is an essential trade skill for litigators and is taught in law schools and continuing legal education programs. It may also be taught in primary, secondary, and undergraduate schools, usually as a mock trial elective.

In the law of the United States of America, an objection is a formal protest raised in court during a trial to disallow a witness's testimony or other evidence in violation of the rules of evidence or other procedural law. An objection is typically raised after the opposing party asks a question of the witness, but before the witness can answer, or when the opposing party is about to enter something into evidence. The judge then makes a ruling on whether the objection is "sustained" or "overruled". An attorney may choose to "rephrase" a question that has been objected to, so long as the judge permits it. Lawyers should make an objection before there is an answer to the question. Research finds that frequent objections by attorneys do not alienate jurors.

The Art of Cross-Examination is a classic text for trial attorneys and law students on how to cross-examine witnesses. Written by American attorney Francis L. Wellman, the book was first published in 1903 by The Macmillan Company, and was still in print more than 100 years later.

The Pennsylvania Mock Trial Competition is a high school Mock Trial competition in Pennsylvania sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Association Young Lawyers Division. The winning school of the state finals advances to the National High School Mock Trial Championship. The Pennsylvania Mock Trial Competition first began in 1984. The case material is usually released early in November, within the first two weeks. Typically, 250 to 300 teams compete each year making it one of the largest state competitions in the country. The Statewide Championship is held each year in late March at the Dauphin County Courthouse in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and consists of the top 12 to 16 teams in the state. As a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the 2020 Statewide Championship was cancelled and the entire 2021 and 2022 competition seasons were held virtually.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. Glasser was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Perry Mason moment</span> Moment during a trial that radically shifts the likely outcome

In court proceedings in the United States, a Perry Mason moment is said to have occurred whenever information is unexpectedly, and often dramatically, introduced into the record that changes the perception of the proceedings greatly and often influences the outcome. Often it takes the form of a witness's answer to a question, but it can sometimes come in the form of new evidence. It takes its name from Perry Mason, a fictional character in novels and stories written by Erle Stanley Gardner, where such dramatic reversals occurred, often in the form of witnesses confessing to crimes others were accused of in response to the sudden exposure of an inconsistency in their alibi.

State of Florida v. George Zimmerman was a criminal prosecution of George Zimmerman on the charge of second-degree murder stemming from the killing of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012.

Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of to confront accusers in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that, in criminal prosecutions, the defendant has a right "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..." In this case, a person arrested in Texas for robbery was deprived of the ability to cross-examine a witness when the lower court allowed the introduction of a transcript of that witness's earlier testimony at a preliminary proceeding instead of compelling attendance by the witness at trial.

The Delaware Mock Trial Competition is a high school Mock Trial competition in Delaware sponsored by the Delaware Law Related Education Center. The winning school of the state finals advances to the National High School Mock Trial Championship. The Delaware Mock Trial Competition was established in 1991, with it's first competition being held in 1992. The case material is usually released early in November and the competition takes place on the last Friday and Saturday in February at the Leonard L. Williams Justice Center in Wilmington, Delaware. Typically, between 20 and 24 teams compete each year, drawing from traditional public schools, charter schools, private schools, catholic schools, and civic organizations from across the state. As a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the 2021 and 2022 competition seasons were held virtually.

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   978-1580121255.
  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