Difference between revisions of "Cross-Examination"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
#Continue to build in a continuous loop. | #Continue to build in a continuous loop. | ||
| − | One method of structuring cross examination is the '''Chapter Method'''. | + | One method of structuring cross examination is the '''Chapter Method'''. The Chapter Method organizes cross examination into a cluster of favorable points (called chapters) that ultimately help you tell the judge or jury your side of the story. |
To follow this method: | To follow this method: | ||
| − | First, define your purpose of cross examination for the witness. | + | First, define your purpose of cross examination for the witness. Is it to expose bias or motive? To bring out inconsistencies of facts? Or to simply show that the witness cannot be believed? Your purpose may be different for each witness. It should be determined based upon all of the facts and the purpose should coincide with your theory of the case. |
| − | Second, once you determine the primary goal | + | Second, once you determine the primary goal of your cross examination of a specific witness, decide what points you would like to make. The points will help you reach your primary goal. Each point will become a chapter and will deserve at least one page. A point may be the existence of a fact, the introduction of a new fact, or the weakening of an existing fact. |
| − | Third, place the point that you wish to make on the top of the page. Each point will be the title of each chapter. | + | Third, place the point that you wish to make on the top of the page. Each point will be the title of each chapter. For example, if you want to show a witness could not have seen the suspect very well because it was dark outside, write on the top of the page, "Witness Couldn't See Suspect Because Dark Outside." |
| − | Forth, draft a number of cross examination questions in a logical progression that lead up to, and give context to, the ultimate point you want to make. | + | Forth, draft a number of cross examination questions in a logical progression that lead up to, and give context to, the ultimate point you want to make. Begin with general questions and move to specific questions. Use simple, one fact per sentence, leading questions. For Example, |
| − | *The robbery occurred at 10pm at night | + | *The robbery occurred at 10pm at night? |
| − | *At 10pm at night, it is dark outside | + | *At 10pm at night, it is dark outside? |
| − | *You were outside when the robbery occurred | + | *You were outside when the robbery occurred? |
| − | *When the robbery occurred, you were outside standing in the dark | + | *When the robbery occurred, you were outside standing in the dark? |
| − | Fifth, and finally, | + | Fifth, and finally, be sure to include a form of reference to your points and cross examination questions. The reference may be used in the event that the witness tries to disagree with you. The reference can be a small notation or shorthand pointing to the specific resource that you obtained the information from: police report, witness interview, photo, etc... |
The goal in cross examination should not be to have the witness recite the facts in a chronological order. This simply mimics the prosecution and solidifies their side of the story. That is why the chapter method is so effective. It helps the judge or jury focus on your specific points that illustrate your theory of the case. | The goal in cross examination should not be to have the witness recite the facts in a chronological order. This simply mimics the prosecution and solidifies their side of the story. That is why the chapter method is so effective. It helps the judge or jury focus on your specific points that illustrate your theory of the case. | ||
| − | At the end of your cross examination you should | + | At the end of your cross examination you should achieve your primary goal through your chapters and the specific points you made. These chapters and their points can then be used in closing arguments to remind the judge or jury of what the evidence is and how it is consistent with your theory of the case. |
== Witness Control == | == Witness Control == | ||
