After the prosecutor finishes with direct examination of a witness, the defense has the right to “cross-examine” the witness. The approach a defense attorney takes when cross-examining a witness is a strategical decision that is based on a number of factors.
Feb 16, 2017 · The approach a defense attorney takes when cross-examining a witness is a strategical decision that is based on a number of factors. For example, if the witness is an expert witness, a defense attorney often focuses on getting the witness to admit that he/she is not 100 percent sure of the testimony just given.
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.
A Primer on Cross-Examination of Defense Experts. This article summarizes relevant Illinois law on expert testimony, the knowledge of which is crucial to adequate preparation. Every trial lawyer knows it-a case can be won or lost on the cross of your opponent's expert. Most attorneys have the skills for a basic cross-examination, but this ...
Feb 05, 2020 · The message to the jury was that plaintiff was not entitled to a verdict when he had blatantly lied to the jury and violated their trust. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the insured. Should you have any questions, please call our office at (914) 703-6300 or contact: Jeffrey T. Miller ,Executive Partner.
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.
The attorney can also question the witness about any felony criminal convictions or about any crimes involving dishonesty. Just as on direct examination, the opposing party's attorney can raise objections to the questions posed. The judge then rules on the objection.
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 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.
The purpose of a direct examination is to get the witness to testify about facts that support the plaintiff's case. Generally, a witness can't give an opinion or draw conclusions from the evidence unless that person has been qualified as an ...
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.
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.
Direct examination is the opportunity for the witness to tell their story. The attorney should simply be helping the witness to tell the story by asking the witness open-ended questions. Cross-examination, in contrast, is a targeted attack on the prosecutor's theory of the case. The focus should be on the attorney, ...
Generally, the right guarantees an opportunity to ask questions of government witnesses at trial.
United States - In the United States the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
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.
Closed-ended questions are designed to force the witness to answer yes or no. A cross-examination should consist SOLELY of closed-ended questions, unless the attorney is absolutely sure of the witness' answer to an open-ended question.
Transitioning from one topic to another is particularly difficult on cross, because the defense is helping the witness to tell a story. One way to change the topic, it to use a transition or headline statement. Although these are not questions, transition statements are generally permissible because they notify the witness and the fact finder that the subject has shifted.
The notice of deposition should include a rider that requires the expert to produce their entire file, including all letters, reports, depositions, and materials they have reviewed and any notes they have generated. These documents will provide insight into an expert's thought processes.
Yet many lawyers forget that the goal of impeachment is not to intimidate the witness, but to expose the witness as either wrong or not credible. Particularly with defense experts, you want the jury to view the witness as a hired salesman who cannot be relied upon for his objectivity.
In order to help provide context for your case, expert witnesses can address different elements of fact. By combining their experience and education they can help to assert their findings. Conversely, the opposing side will also have expert witnesses.
When cross-examining the opposing expert witness, their specialty is half of the equation. Because of their inclusion by opposing counsel, they likely have assertions that differ from those of your own expert. One way to flesh this out, to contrast with elements of your own expert, is to ask fact-specific questions.
Expert testimony is one component of the overall point that you would like the jury to use to analyze facts of the case. As such, understanding the probable responses that your questions will elicit during cross-examination, in order to help illustrate the picture you try to convey, is extremely advantageous.
It should be noted, however, that this is a fine line. If you push too hard, the jury may view you as pushy or overly aggressive, which can alienate them.
I litigated for twenty-five years, but then I swapped litigating for my in-house role, which involves supervising litigation. I’ve now been supervising for ten years, which means 1., I’m old, and 2., I’m out of practice, so I’ll never return to life at a firm.
PLI’s health care programs allow you to keep up with the law and trends while earning CLE. From COVID-19 developments to digital health to workplace…