Leading question

Last updated

A leading question is a question that suggests a particular answer and contains information the examiner is looking to have confirmed. [1] 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. [2]

Contents

The propriety of leading questions generally depends on the relationship of the witness to the party conducting the examination. An examiner may generally ask leading questions of a hostile witness or on cross-examination ("Will help to elicit the testimony of a witness who, due to age, incapacity, or limited intelligence, is having difficulty communicating their evidence" [3] ), but not on direct examination (to "coach" the witness to provide a particular answer). [2]

Cairns-Lee, Lawley & Tosey have reviewed the role of leading questions in research interviews and proposed a typology and a 'cleanness rating' to facilitate researchers to review and assess the influence of their interview questions. [4]

Example

Leading questions may often be answerable with a yes or no (though not all yes–no questions are leading). [1] Leading questions are distinct from loaded questions, which are objectionable because they contain implicit assumptions [5] (such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" indirectly asserting that the subject both has a wife, and has beaten her at some point).

Leading question: "Mr. Smith's car was traveling 20 miles over the speed limit when he lost control of his vehicle and slammed into the victim's car, right?" (Leads the witness to the conclusion that Mr. Smith was speeding, and as a result lost control of his vehicle, leading to the accident, which was clearly his fault.)

Neutral question: "How fast would you estimate Mr. Smith's car was traveling before the collision?"

Even neutral questions can lead witnesses to answers based on word choice, response framing, assumptions made, and form. The words "fast", "collision" and "How", for example, can alter speed estimates provided by respondents. [6]

When someone asks a leading question, they expect the other person to agree with the leading question.

"Our company has the best sandwiches, right?"

They expect the answer to agree that the sandwiches are the best.

United States

While each state has its own rules of evidence, many states model their rules on the Federal Rules of Evidence, which themselves relate closely to the common-law mode of examination. Rule 611(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that:

Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.

Leading questions are the primary mode of examination of witnesses who are hostile to the examining party, and are not objectionable in that context. Examination of hostile witnesses usually takes place on cross-examination. As the rule recognizes, the examination of a "hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party" will sometimes take place on direct examination, and leading questions are permitted.

In practice, judges will sometimes permit leading questions on direct examination of friendly witnesses with respect to preliminary matters that are necessary to provide background or context, and which are not in dispute; for example, a witness's employment or education. Leading questions may also be permitted on direct examination when a witness requires special handling, for example a child. However, the court must take care to be sure that the examining attorney is not coaching the witness through leading questions. Courts may also cite the various editions of McCormick's and Wigmore's treatises on evidence to answer whether a closed-ended question is inherently leading. [7]

Although Rule 611(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (and comparable rules of many states) do not prohibit leading questions on re-direct, some[ which? ] states have expressly limited the use of leading questions on re-direct. As a practical matter, it rests within the trial court's discretion as to what leading questions may be asked on re-direct. Generally speaking, leading questions will be more liberally permitted on re-direct in order to establish a foundation and call the attention of the witness to specific testimony elicited on cross examination. Additionally, on re-direct, an interrogator will often ask questions which specifically seek to elicit whether an inference resulting from questioning on cross examinations is accurate. Although these type of questions will likely result in a "yes" or "no" response, they are properly understood to be direct questions, not leading questions, and are permissible.

Exceptions to general restrictions against leading questions may arise,

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cross-examination</span> The interrogation of a witness called by ones opponent

In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination and may be followed by a redirect. 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.

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.

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

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 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">Discovery (law)</span> Pretrial procedure in common law countries for obtaining evidence

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a phase of pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from other parties. This is by means of methods of discovery such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from nonparties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. Conversely, a party or nonparty resisting discovery can seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion for a protective order.

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.

In the American legal system, argumentative is an evidentiary objection raised in response to a question which prompts a witness to draw inferences from facts of the case.

In common law, a foundation is sufficient preliminary evidence of the authenticity and relevance for the admission of material evidence in the form of exhibits or testimony of witnesses. Although the word "Foundation" does not appear in the Federal Rules of Evidence, scholars have argued that its existence is displayed, albeit implicitly, when viewing all the rules in context.

A double-barreled question is an informal fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that touches upon more than one issue, yet allows only for one answer. This may result in inaccuracies in the attitudes being measured for the question, as the respondent can answer only one of the two questions, and cannot indicate which one is being answered.

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court to determine and delineate several questions concerning administrative procedure in Social Security disability cases. Among the questions considered was the propriety of using physicians' written reports generated from medical examinations of a disability claimant, and whether these could constitute "substantial evidence" supportive of finding nondisability under the Social Security Act.

In the law of the United States of America, an objection is a formal protest to evidence, argument, or questions that are in violation of the rules of evidence or other procedural law. Objections are often raised in court during a trial to disallow a witness's testimony, and may also be raised during depositions and in response to written discovery.

Civil procedure in Brazil consists of the rules of civil procedure detailed in the Civil Procedure Code, which has been approved in March, 2015, and being in application since March, 2016, in substitution to the old code from 1973. As a civil law system, it is heavily influenced by Roman and German concepts of civil procedure. In Brazil, civil procedure regulates the hearings of conflicts based in various sectors of law, such as private law, social law, and public law.

A suggestive question is a question that implies that a certain answer should be given in response, or falsely presents a presupposition in the question as accepted fact. Such a question distorts the memory thereby tricking the person into answering in a specific way that might or might not be true or consistent with their actual feelings, and can be deliberate or unintentional. For example, the phrasing "Don't you think this was wrong?" is more suggestive than "Do you think this was wrong?" despite the difference of only one word. The former may subtly pressure the respondent into responding "yes", whereas the latter is far more direct. Repeated questions can make people think their first answer is wrong and lead them to change their answer, or it can cause people to continuously answer until the interrogator gets the exact response that they desire. The diction used by the interviewer can also be an influencing factor to the response given by the interrogated individual.

<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.

Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed a longstanding conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals over whether Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), which provides an exception to the hearsay rule for public investigatory reports containing "factual findings," extends to conclusions and opinions contained in such reports. The court also considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit, on cross-examination, testimony intended to provide a more complete picture of a document about which the witness had testified on direct.

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state may not enforce its rules of evidence, such as rules excluding hearsay, in a fashion that disallows a criminal defendant from presenting reliable exculpatory evidence and thus denies the defendant a fair trial.

Clean language interviewing (CLI), sometimes shortened to clean interviewing, aims to maximise the reliability that information collected during an interview derives from the interviewee. CLI seeks to address some of the "threats to validity and reliability" that can occur during an interview and to increase the "trustworthiness" of the data collected. It does this by employing a technique that minimises the unintended introduction of interviewer content, assumption, leading question structure, presupposition, framing, priming, tacit metaphor and nonverbal aspects such as paralanguage and gesture that may compromise the authenticity of the data collected.

Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its decision, the Court ruled on when a criminal defendant who opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence also opens the door to evidence that would otherwise be excluded by the Confrontation Clause.

References

  1. 1 2 Melilli, Kenneth J. (2003). "Leading Questions on Direct Examination: A More Pragmatic Approach". American Journal of Trial Advocacy. 27: 155.
  2. 1 2 Ehrhardt, Charles W.; Young, Stephanie J. (1995). "Using Leading Questions during Direct Examination". Florida State University Law Journal. 23: 401.
  3. ↑ "Leading Questions". Findlaw. Retrieved 2022-11-21.
  4. ↑ Cairns-Lee, Heather; Lawley, James; Tosey, Paul (2022). "Enhancing researcher reflexivity about the influence of leading questions in interviews". The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 58 (1): 164–188. doi:10.1177/00218863211037446.
  5. ↑ Foster, Stephen William (December 2013). "What Is "the Question"?: What Is "the Question"?". Anthropology and Humanism. 38 (2): 146–159. doi:10.1111/anhu.12015.
  6. ↑ Loftus, Elizabeth F.; Zanni, Guido (January 1975). "Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question". Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 5 (1): 86–88. doi: 10.3758/BF03336715 .
  7. ↑ Jeter, Lisa (2021-09-07). "Is a Closed-Ended Question Inherently a Leading Question?". National Association of Attorneys General. Retrieved 2022-11-27.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.