 | A basic resource that will be of value to most library
collections. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Timothy L. Hall,
University of Mississippi Law School
ISBN: 978-1-58765-189-2
List Price: $120
April 2004 · 2 volumes · 797 pages · 6"x9"
|
The U.S. Legal System
Cross-examination
That part of a legal proceeding in which a witness called to testify in behalf of one party is questioned by the counsel for the opposing party
When parties to legal proceedings call their own witnesses to testify, the questions they ask of them are known as the direct examination of witnesses. At the conclusion of direct examinations, opposing parties are allowed to question the same witnesses; this questioning is known as cross-examination of witnesses. In most cases, relationships between questioners and witnesses during direct examination are cordial, with the witnesses testifying to matters that support the questioners' cases. During cross-examination, however, relationships between questioners and witnesses often become adversarial. However, cross-examinations do not routinely involve heated exchanges between questioners and witnesses. More often, cross-examinations are methodical exercises in establishing key points, rather than the fiery confrontations between attorneys and witnesses frequently depicted in dramatized courtroom settings.
Cross-examinations commonly pursue two aims: to elicit from witnesses testimony supporting the questioners' cases and to challenge hostile witnesses' credibility. Even hostile witnesses occasionally admit--though perhaps reluctantly--at least some facts that help support the opposing parties' cases. A successful cross-examination presses for such admissions. In addition, cross-examiners frequently attempt to discredit harmful testimony obtained on direct examination. Attorneys conducting cross-examinations can choose from among a variety of possible strategies.
An attorney may, for example, question a witness's perception of an event for which the witness has provided testimony. Perhaps the witness was too far removed from the scene to make an accurate observation, or perhaps it was dark or the witness's eyeglasses were left at home. Inquiries into matters such as these may suggest that the witness's ability to perceive an event was impaired. The cross-examiner may challenge, moreover, a witness's recollection of an event and demonstrate that the recollection is faulty in certain respects. It may also be that a witness is a close friend of the opposing party. In such a case, the cross-examiner would probably disclose this relationship to suggest that the witness is biased. Or perhaps a witness has previously been convicted of embezzling funds from an employer, in which case the cross-examiner might question the witness about the conviction to suggest that the witness is generally untrustworthy. Finally, cross-examination may seek to demonstrate that a witness's testimony on direct examination is inconsistent with other information. The testimony may be shown to be inconsistent with a prior statement made by the witness--for example, a statement made to the police or in a deposition. Moreover, the cross-examiner may seek to demonstrate that the witness's story is inconsistent with other facts established in a case, or that it is simply inconsistent with common sense.
Timothy L. Hall
See Also: Adversary system; Affidavits; Court reporters; Evidence, rules of; Testimony; Trial transcripts; Trials; Witnesses; Witnesses, confrontation of; Witnesses, expert.
|
