Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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).
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).
The Art of Cross-Examination is a classic text for trial attorneys and law students on how to cross-examine witnesses.Written by American attorney Francis L. Wellman, the book was first published in 1903 by The Macmillan Company, and was still in print more than 100 years later.
An examiner may generally ask leading questions of a hostile witness or on cross-examination ("Will help to elicit the testimony of a witness who, due to age, incapacity, or limited intelligence, is having difficulty communicating their evidence" [3]), but not on direct examination (to "coach" the witness to provide a particular answer).
Donald Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen goes back on the stand Thursday braced for another bruising day of cross-examination that is shaping up as the most crucial chapter in the first ...
Following each constructive speech, there is a three-minute cross-examination period in which the opposing team questions the team which just spoke. Usually, the cross-examination is conducted by the opponent who will not speak next of the speaker who just spoke, but some cross-examinations are open, that is: either partner may ask or answer ...
Holmes’ cross examination resumes next week. The 37-year-old's testimony is expected to weigh heavily on jurors' minds as they decide whether to convict her on 11 counts of criminal fraud, each ...
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 ...