The attorney who calls the witness conducts a direct examination. The opposing attorney may then conduct a cross examination. The first attorney may then conduct a redirect exam, whereupon the opposing attorney may conduct a recross exam.
The term is :cross-examination."
Direct examination
Both direct-examination and cross-examination are important in a trial. Direct-examination allows the attorney to present their case and their witness's testimony, while cross-examination gives the opposing attorney the opportunity to challenge the witness's credibility and testimony. They both serve different purposes in the trial process and are equally important.
A redirect examination is when an attorney asks additional questions to clarify issues raised during cross-examination. It allows the witness to explain or provide further details on points that were discussed earlier in the trial. The goal is to strengthen the witness's credibility and testimony.
Redirect exam testimony refers to the process in which an attorney asks follow-up questions to a witness after cross-examination by the opposing attorney. The purpose is to clarify or correct any points that may have been raised during cross-examination, and to further support the witness's credibility and the case's narrative.
The witness was called to testify in court about what they had seen.
The defense tries to create doubt in the minds of the jury.
Direct examination is when the witness is FIRST questioned in court by an attorney (usually their own lawyer), when he is questioned by the opposing side it is called "cross-examination."
The attorney was asked to testify as a character witness for a forty year old man on remand.
Examination of a witness by opposing counsel is called cross-examination, assuming that by "opposing counsel" you mean examining a witness that is testifying against the client of the opposing counsel. Examination by either counsel of witnesses in favor of their client's position is called direct examination.
Direct examination is when the witness is FIRST questioned in court by an attorney (usually their own lawyer), when he is questioned by the opposing side it is called "cross-examination."
Yes there are many Jehovah's Witnesses that are attorneys.
The witness was not prepared for the defense attorney's brutal cross examination.
Yes, they can. Typically a defense attorney will subpoena the witness, but the attorney may request that the court order the witness to remain in the court after testifying for the state. This assumes there is evidence the witness has to offer that cannot be brought out on cross examination of them for some reason. The better practice is to issue a subpoena.
A prior conviction does not prohibit a person from testifying. Certain convictions may be used to challenge the credibility of a witness before the jury. Whether or not a witness is called to testify is the decision of the lead attorney who would call the witness.
The judge requested the defense attorney to produce his witnesses one by one
The plaintiff is not required to provide witnesses to a case, per se; although they must prove their case (It is very hard to do without at least one witness, normally the plaintiff alone). In either case however the defense is not limited in its ability to call any witness to the case, as long as the plaintiff is notified of the witness who will appear and the witness will provide material testimony about the case.Additional: The defense cannot elicit brand-new testimony from the plaintiffs witness, however the witness is subject to cross-examination by the defense, who will try to either draw out testimony favorable to his client, or to impeach the testimony that the witness gave on direct examination.
A federal criminal attorney is usually assigned to cases that involve federal crimes. Federal defense attorneys are provided to people who have been accused of a crime and can’t afford an attorney. If you are involved in a federal case, you will find that you probably interact with a federal criminal attorney from both sides. Defense or Prosecution A federal criminal attorney can work for the prosecution or for the defense. The defense attorney is hired to help the accused individual prove that they did not commit the crime. This attorney works closely with his or her client to find evidence to exonerate them. The federal criminal attorney who works to defend the government’s case is called the prosecutor. This attorney’s job is to prove that the accused individual did commit the crime. Both attorneys have the power to call witnesses and present evidence for both sides. When You are a Witness There is a chance that you will be contacted to serve as a witness during a federal criminal trial, especially if you were involved with the situation in any way. When a federal criminal attorney contacts you, it may be a good idea to consult with an objective federal criminal attorney who is not part of the case. The second attorney can give you information regarding your rights as a witness, and help you determine when you should testify or refuse to testify. There may be consequences to refusing to testify, and the attorney can explain them to you. The Difference Between Federal and State Criminal Attorneys Federal criminal attorneys usually charge much higher fees than state attorneys. They also have more time to work on each case because the federal court system tends to move more slowly than state systems. Most federal criminal attorneys have higher academic records than average state attorneys, as well. Federal attorneys spend their time studying federal law so that they can fully understand every part of the system, whether they are prosecutors or defenders. A federal attorney doesn’t work as closely with local law enforcement. They tend to work more cases that involve federal agencies, like the FBI, instead of state police.
Any witness may testify in a criminal trial, the competency would be determined by the cross examination. You would have to further define what you mean by "competent?"Added: If the witness has previously been declared mentally incompetent by the court or by psychiatric exam, it is doubtful that the opposing attorney would even allow the individual to give testimony without challenging their status to the court.