Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 rule also permits the trial court, in its discretion, to "allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination". Many state courts do permit a lawyer to cross-examine a witness on matters not raised during direct examination, though California restricts cross-examination to "any matter within the scope of the direct examination ...
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 ...
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.
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?" Opposing counsel could raise an argumentative ...
Rule 5, as advocated by James E. Krier, Earl Warren DeLano Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, and Stewart Schwab, Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, in Property Rules and Liability Rules: the Cathedral in another Light provides for a solution for the shortfalls of Rule 4. Under Rule 5, the court would use a best ...
Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.
The question of what 'best' means is a common question in social choice theory. The following rules are most common: Utilitarian rule – sometimes called the max-sum rule or Benthamite welfare – aims to maximize the sum of utilities. Egalitarian rule – sometimes called the max-min rule or Rawlsian welfare – aims to maximize the smallest ...