Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Rule 611(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that: Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination.
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 ...
The law was enacted only after Congress made a series of modifications to the proposed rules. Much of the debate on the Rules stemmed from concerns that came to lawmakers' attention due to the Watergate scandal, particularly questions of privilege. [3] Some of the most prominent congressional amendments when Congress adopted the rules included:
Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is an opinion given by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court overruled Monroe v. Pape by holding that a local government is a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code : Civil action for deprivation of rights . [ 1 ]
In the American legal system, argumentative is an evidentiary objection raised in response to a question which prompts a witness to draw inferences from facts of the case. [1]A lawyer on direct examination asks his witness, a layman with no legal training, "So John Doe was driving negligently?"
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.