Difference between revisions of "Cross-Examination"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Background ==
 
== Background ==
  
Cross-examination is an opportunity for the defense attorney to question the prosecution's witnesses during a trial. Through cross-examination, a defense attorney can present their own evidence and develop a theory of the case using government witnesses. Cross-examination is important because it may be the only time/means for the criminal defense attorney to get before the judge facts, inferences, and impressions which are necessary to the defendant's [[Theory of the Case | theory of the case]].
+
Cross-examination is an opportunity for the defense attorney to question the prosecution's witnesses during a trial. Cross-examination is an effective way for the defense to present evidence by using government witnesses. On cross, the attorney should be asking questions that develop the defense's theory of the case [[Theory of the Case | theory of the case]]. Cross may be the defense's only opportunity to present important facts, inferences and impressions. 
  
[[Direct Examination | Direct examination]] and cross-examination have very different purposes and techniques. Direct examination requires the witness to tell a story.  The goal of direct examination is for the criminal defender to elicit the witness's story in the witness's own words in a manner that will advance the overall theory of the case.
+
[[Direct Examination | Direct examination]] and cross-examination have very different purposes and techniques. Direct examination is the opportunity for the witness to tell their story.  The attorney should simply be helping the witness to tell the story by asking the witness open-ended questions.  
  
 
Cross-examination, on the other hand, is a selective, targeted attack on the prosecutor's theory of the case.  It is not simply rehashing the testimony that was developed during the direct examination of the witness.  During cross-examination the defense attorney seeks to develop points that will show that the witness's testimony is inconsistent with other testimony or evidence; that the witness is biased against the defendant; that the witness has a motive to testify against the defendant; that the witness (if he is a co-defendant) had the opportunity to commit the crime; that the witness lacks knowledge of the facts and the evidence in the case; and that the witness was unable to see, hear, perceive, and observe the major events in the case.   
 
Cross-examination, on the other hand, is a selective, targeted attack on the prosecutor's theory of the case.  It is not simply rehashing the testimony that was developed during the direct examination of the witness.  During cross-examination the defense attorney seeks to develop points that will show that the witness's testimony is inconsistent with other testimony or evidence; that the witness is biased against the defendant; that the witness has a motive to testify against the defendant; that the witness (if he is a co-defendant) had the opportunity to commit the crime; that the witness lacks knowledge of the facts and the evidence in the case; and that the witness was unable to see, hear, perceive, and observe the major events in the case.   

Revision as of 15:38, 16 June 2010