The plaintiff's attorney does the initial questioning of the witness, which is called direct examination. The purpose of a direct examination is to get the witness to testify about facts that support the plaintiff's case.
Once the plaintiff's attorney has called all of the plaintiff's witnesses, the defendant's attorney begins calling witnesses. 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.
Witnesses may be asked if they have been convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude (dishonesty), since this is relevant to their credibility.
The purpose of direct examination is to get the witness to testify about facts that support the plaintiff’s case. Since there is no set method for asking questions, certain latitude should be allowed in the form of asking questions to witnesses.
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.
Cross Examination: The questions which a lawyer puts to the party or a witness on the opposing side.
What is “direct examination”? In “direct examination,” an attorney questions a witness to get the witness's account (“testimony”) of what happened during the event that triggered the trial.
Cross-examination occurs after the witness's direct examination. Specifically, cross-examination allows the opposing party's attorney to question the witness in order to uncover information that may not have been disclosed during direct examination or to impeach the witness.
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 initial questioning of a witness, by the party that called them to the stand. Generally followed by an opportunity for cross examination.
Re-examination is the act or process of examining one's witness in a court of law or in an arbitration again after the witness has been cross-examined by the opposing counsel.
Direct examination questions allow a personal injury attorney to ask key witnesses to explain what they saw, heard, or did in relation to an incident. For example, an attorney in a car accident personal injury lawsuit may call a bystander to testify about what they saw just before, during, or after the accident.
The first aim of cross-examination of a witness is to test that witness's evidence by putting your case (your version of events) to him/her.
First, there is direct examination, which is defined as the initial “questioning of a witness in a trial or other proceeding (including a deposition) conducted by the party who called the witness to testify.”[1] It is commonly known as “direct,” for short.
Direct Examination - examination of witness by an attorney who CALLED the witness to the stand.
The questioning of a witness who has already testified, for the purpose of discrediting the witness’ testimony, knowledge of the event, or reputation.
During court proceedings, witnesses are called to the stand and questioned by the attorney who called them. After that attorney ends his questioning, the attorney for the opposing party is given the opportunity to ask questions of the same witness.
Discrediting Cross-Examination. Discrediting cross-examination attempts to bring doubt on the witness’ testimony of facts. This may be done by showing that the witness’ testimony does not make fit in with what other witnesses and evidence say, or that it does not make common sense.
A witness’ testimony may be discredited through discrediting cross-examination by showing any of the following: The witness is unable to understand the obligation to tell the truth in court. The witness has some problem of perception. The witness is unable to effectively communicate his testimony. The witness has a faulty memory.
Cross-examination is the legal process of interrogating a witness that has been called to testify by the opposing party in a legal proceeding. When a party calls a witness to testify in court, he must follow certain rules in questioning the witness. This is called “direct examination.”. Once this questioning is finished, ...
A witness’s entire testimony may be discredited, or rendered worthless, by showing that he has a history of lying, or of other dishonesty.
In general, there are two types of cross-examination: supportive cross-examination, and discrediting cross-examination.
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, ...
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].
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.
An attorney's statement to the jury at the beginning of the trial; briefly outlines the evidence that will be offered during the trial and the legal theory that will be pursued
An attorney's objection, during voir dire, to the inclusion of a particular person on the jury
A proceeding in which attorneys for the plaintiff and the defendant ask prospective jurors questions to determine whether any potential juror is biased or has any connection with a party to the action or with a prospective witness
The items submitted during the trial (pleadings, motions, briefs, and exhibits) and the transcript of the trial proceedings that are forwarded to the appellate court for review when a case is appealed
The party who takes an appeal from one court to another; sometimes referred to as the petitioner
A motion asserting that the trial was so fundamentally flawed (because of error, newly discovered evidence, prejudice, or other reason) that a new trial is needed to present a miscarriage of justice
Traditionally, a binder that contains copies of all the documents and information that an attorney will need to have at hand during the trial
In addition, sometimes when a witness is being questioned on direct examination, s/he will make an effort to explain away a bad answer during the next question, regardless of what the question asked is . This is another instance when you could object to the non-responsive answer.
Vague. A vague question is when it is difficult or impossible to tell what the question is about. You would want to object to a vague question that is asked of your witness because of the risk that the witness will misunderstand the question and say something that will hurt your case.
A question or response can be objectionable if a person failed to explain the background circumstances of how s/he knows the information s/he is testifying about, or are being asked about. When answering about specific facts, the witness has to set the stage and explain how s/he knows the information that s/he knows.
If you find yourself asking a compound question, don’t get flustered with the other party’s objection and skip the issue entirely. Just separate out the questions, ask them one at a time, and they might then be allowed.
Compound questions are not allowed because they can confuse the witness, the judge, and the jury. Also, it may not be clear for the court record which of the questions the witness is answering.
Hearsay. A person can only testify as to what s/he knows to be true, not what s/he heard from someone else. If a witness tries to testify about what a non- party told him/her or tries to enter into evidence something in writing that a non-party wrote, then the testimony or written evidence is objectionable as hearsay.
You could testify that you saw “a white powdery substance in a baggie that appeared to be cocaine,” based on your understanding of the drug and what you looked up online. However, a judge may allow testimony such as “I am a good mother” or “He is a good father” even though that is an opinion. Hearsay.
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.
Impeach in this sense means to question or reduce the credibility of the witness or evidence.
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.