Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
In the United States federal courts, a cross-examining attorney is generally limited by Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the "subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness's credibility". The rule also permits the trial court, in its discretion, to "allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct ...
The rule has been adopted in most common law countries, including South Africa, Australia and Fiji, and it remains one of the primary rules of consideration during cross-examination. In Australia the rule in Browne v Dunn overlaps with section 46 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
For example, the opponent might elicit on cross-examination an admission that the witness did not directly perceive every single part of the events at issue; the proponent will attempt on redirect to establish that the witness perceived enough of those events that the finder of fact can draw reasonable inferences as to the gaps where the ...
In this context, "negligently" is a legal term of art with a precise and narrow meaning, and the witness cannot reasonably answer the question without understanding the relevant law. Since the lawyer is "arguing" his case that John Doe was driving negligently through the witness, the objection would be sustained and the improper statements ...
It is also referred to as cross-examination debate (sometimes shortened to Cross-X or CX) because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. Evidence presentation is a crucial part of policy debate. The main argument being debated during a round is to change or not change the status quo.
The evidence in question was introduced over counsel's continuing objection at the subsequent trial. The jury found Williams guilty of murder, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court, a bare majority of whose members agreed with the trial court that Williams had "waived his right to the presence of his counsel" on ...
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.