0
Cross-examination is governed by the rules of evidence of the particular jurisdiction. In criminal cases a defendant, through his lawyer, have the constitutional right to confront the prosecution's witnesses. Nevertheless, the questions and scope of cross-examination can be quite limited and lawyers representing each side are permitted to object to questions that are irrelevant, improperly phrased, or lacking foundation. While most people think a good cross-examiner aggressively attacks a witness's veracity, a sophisticated trial lawyer may use cross-examination to elicit favorable facts from a witness in a non-hostile manner. Arguably, cross-examination is the reason for the trial.
A trial lawyer may also use cross-examination to clarify a witness's testimony.
What else can I help you with?
After a witness testifies for one side the other side is allowed to do what with them?
Cross-examine.
What is the other side allowed to do to a witness after he testifies?
They're allowed to cross-examine him. The witness is called to the stand - and gives their account of what they saw. The opposing counsel then has the chance to question the witness - in an attempt to disprove their evidence.
What is the meaning of the idiom cross-examination?
It is courtroom jargon rather than an idiom. To cross-examine means for the other side in the case to question the same witness. The "cross" part is added because the goal of the other person questioning the person is opposite that of the first person to do so. If a defense attorney asks a witness what they saw and their description paints the defendant in a positive light, then the prosecutor will want to cross-examine the witness to try to find holes in the story or convince the courtroom that they didn't see what they claimed to have seen.
When only lawyers may cross examine the witnesses in a trial in a debate the participants cross examine?
one another.
While only lawyers may cross-examine the witnesses in a trial, in a debate, the participants cross-examine?
one another.
How do you cross examine someone effectively?
Trial lawyers who are exceptionally good at cross examining a witness tend to follow one very important rule: Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer. In a cross exam, unlike the direct exam, the attorney can (and should) ask leading questions. A leading question provides the answer to the question, such as, "Isn't it true, Mr. Witness, that when you picked up the gun and pulled the trigger, you had not yet seen the security camera?" A good cross examination is one where the witness can answer only "yes" or "no" to the question being asked.
When is a sworn statement or affidavit admissable in court?
No, definitely not. Except for extremely narrow and defined circumstances, affidavits are considered "hearsay" and are not admissable as 'best evidence." Best evidence would be the testimony. in person, of the individual who gave the affidavit. Such a personal appearance allows the opposing side to cross-examine the witness. You can't cross-examine a piece of paper.
What is deffernce between cross examine and sentence?
These two things are completely different. Cross examination is when the attorney has the opportunity to ask questions of the other party's witness. A sentence (in the legal sense) is a punishment given to someone after they have been found guilty of a crime.
Use the word arraign in a sentence?
The experienced lawyer, in order to protect his client from being prosecuted, wanted to arraign the witness once again to cross examine him.
When the defense does a cross examination of the witness they will ask questions in an attempt to what about a testimony?
Trial lawyers can use cross-examination to impeach a witness's testimony, thereby undermining the credibility of that witness on that particular point or as part of a general assault on the witness's veracity. But, good cross-examiners will when appropriate use cross-examination to elicit facts favorable to his side from the witness. It is, therefore, not necessarily the best strategy to attack every witness. See, http://www.relentlessdefense.com/relentless-criminal-cross-examination.html
When the defense does a cross examination of the witness they will ask question in an attempt to what about the testimony?
Trial lawyers can use cross-examination to impeach a witness's testimony, thereby undermining the credibility of that witness on that particular point or as part of a general assault on the witness's veracity. But, good cross-examiners will when appropriate use cross-examination to elicit facts favorable to his side from the witness. It is, therefore, not necessarily the best strategy to attack every witness. See, http://www.relentlessdefense.com/relentless-criminal-cross-examination.html
Is there a limit on how many times an attorney can re-direct or re-cross?
Generally, no, except that an attorney cannot examine the witness again after the opposing attorney has declined (for example, if I finish a re-direct, you choose not to re-cross, I can't then do another re-direct anyway).
