Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
the witness is subject to cross-examination about the prior statement. [4] There is no requirement that the prior consistent statement have been made under oath at a prior trial or hearing. A form of prior consistent statement excepted from this rule is that of prior identification by the witness of another person in a lineup. [citation needed]
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 ...
The impeachment process may be requested by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of actions constituting grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the president, or state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition. An impeachment ...
Aside from saying that the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment and the Senate has the sole power to try impeachment charges, along with stipulating what constitutes an ...
(The Center Square) – The U.S. government’s cross-examination of former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan is expected to start Monday afternoon at the Dirksen Federal Building in downtown ...
[32] [33] Many scholars have argued that if impeachment could not apply to former officeholders, then the Senate's power to disqualify individuals from holding future federal office through an impeachment process would be greatly weakened, as there would be a loophole of resigning before this sentence is imposed by the Senate. [32]
(The Center Square) – Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan has returned to the witness stand for additional cross-examination at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago.
the witness is subject to cross-examination about the prior statement. (801(d)(1), 2014, Federal Rules of Evidence by Muller and Kirkpatrick) A prior inconsistent statement offered solely for impeachment purposes is admissible regardless of whether it satisfies those requirements.