Difference between revisions of "Cross-Examination"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 135: Line 135:
 
== Impeachment ==
 
== Impeachment ==
  
Impeachment is an allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who has been examined is unworthy of credit. Impeachment may be indirect, as through a second witness or presentation of other physical evidence or direct, typically in cross-examination or even direct examination (if permissible.)Cross-Examination is one of the primary places that a defense attorney can impeach a witness. Generally, a defense attorney may impeach prosecution witnesses subject to limitations of the evidence code. Under certain circumstances, an attorney may even impeach their own witnesses.  
+
Impeachment is an allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who has been examined is unworthy of credit. Impeachment may be indirect, as through a second witness or presentation of other physical evidence or direct, typically in cross-examination or even direct examination (if permissible.) Cross-Examination is one of the primary places that a defense attorney can impeach a witness. Generally, a defense attorney may impeach prosecution witnesses subject to limitations of the evidence code. Under certain circumstances, an attorney may even impeach their own witnesses.  
  
 
When preparing for a case, imagine how any one of these areas might impact the witness's credibility:
 
When preparing for a case, imagine how any one of these areas might impact the witness's credibility:
Line 147: Line 147:
 
The admissibility of prior convictions and bad acts varies from country to country. However, a defense attorney should always keep these in mind.  In the United States the rules regarding the admissibility of prior convictions as impeachment evidence is complex.  However, as a general rule convictions that go directly to honesty of a witness are the most powerful. Prior bad acts are also great fodder for cross-examination if they are admissible in court. In the United States, prior bad acts are not admissible to show conformity with conduct on a certain occasion. Thus, evidence of prior burglaries cannot be used to prove a defendant is guilty of burglary on a certain occasion. However, prior bad acts may be admissible in the United States for other, so-called "non propensity" reasons: motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan knowledge, identity or absence of mistake. The rules of evidence surrounding prior bad acts will vary greatly from jurisdiction and the defense attorney should study these carefully if the client has any history of bad acts that could be an issue at trial.
 
The admissibility of prior convictions and bad acts varies from country to country. However, a defense attorney should always keep these in mind.  In the United States the rules regarding the admissibility of prior convictions as impeachment evidence is complex.  However, as a general rule convictions that go directly to honesty of a witness are the most powerful. Prior bad acts are also great fodder for cross-examination if they are admissible in court. In the United States, prior bad acts are not admissible to show conformity with conduct on a certain occasion. Thus, evidence of prior burglaries cannot be used to prove a defendant is guilty of burglary on a certain occasion. However, prior bad acts may be admissible in the United States for other, so-called "non propensity" reasons: motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan knowledge, identity or absence of mistake. The rules of evidence surrounding prior bad acts will vary greatly from jurisdiction and the defense attorney should study these carefully if the client has any history of bad acts that could be an issue at trial.
  
=== Prior dishonest Conduct ===
+
=== Prior dishonest conduct ===
  
 
Prior dishonest conduct, like prior convictions for tax evasion or perjury, may be admissible so that the fact finder can evaluate the credibility of a particular witness.
 
Prior dishonest conduct, like prior convictions for tax evasion or perjury, may be admissible so that the fact finder can evaluate the credibility of a particular witness.
  
=== Specific Contradictions / reality ===
+
=== Specific contradictions / reality ===
  
 
A witness's statement may assert a fact that is contradicted by reality.  For instance, a witness may claim it was raining when in fact it was sunny.
 
A witness's statement may assert a fact that is contradicted by reality.  For instance, a witness may claim it was raining when in fact it was sunny.
Line 157: Line 157:
 
=== Capacity to perceive, recollect and communicate ===
 
=== Capacity to perceive, recollect and communicate ===
 
   
 
   
A powerful method of impeachment during cross-examination is to attack a witness's ability to perceive, recollect and communicate. For instance,
+
A powerful method of impeachment during cross-examination is to attack a witness's ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate. For instance, in a case of eyewitness misidentification, the defense attorney may attack wht witness's vision by showing that the witness was not wearing her glasses at the time of the incident.
  
 
=== Prior inconsistent statements ===
 
=== Prior inconsistent statements ===
  
A defense attorney can impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statement during cross-examination. This can be one of the most powerful methods of cross-examination because it simultaneously undermines their credibility and establishes an a question of fact for the jury. Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement can be achieved in three steps:
+
A defense attorney can also impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statement during cross-examination. This can be one of the most powerful methods of cross-examination because it simultaneously undermines the witness's credibility and establishes a question of fact for the jury. Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement can be achieved in three steps:
  
 
*Step 1: Commit the witness to the statement by asking leading questions.
 
*Step 1: Commit the witness to the statement by asking leading questions.

Revision as of 11:30, 15 June 2010