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 ...
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 ...
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).
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 ...
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:
A rule of inference is a way or schema of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises. [17] This happens usually based only on the logical form of the premises. A rule of inference is valid if, when applied to true premises, the conclusion cannot be false. A particular argument is valid if it follows a valid rule of inference.
It is an active question in psychology how, why, and when the ability to reason develops from infancy to adulthood. [22] Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development [23] posited general mechanisms and stages in the development of reasoning from infancy to adulthood.