Difference between revisions of "Cross-Examination"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
'''Examples:'''  
 
'''Examples:'''  
 +
 
''United States'' - In the United States the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
 
''United States'' - In the United States the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
  
Line 45: Line 46:
 
== Elements of a Successful Cross-Examination ==
 
== Elements of a Successful Cross-Examination ==
  
Every question in cross-examination should appeal to three aspects of the case: substantive, technical, and emotional. The criminal defense attorney must understand and use all three aspects in harmony if they are to be persuasive. Cross-examination must be substantive in that it results in testimony or facts that are related to the crime the defendant is charged with. Cross-examination questions must be technically legal under the country's rules of evidence and phrased in such a way that produce the desired answer. Finally, cross-examination questions should have an emotional impact on all three parties: the defense attorney, the witness, and the judge or jury. The emotional impact of a question flows from both the substantive nature of the question and the method of presentation. The criminal defense lawyer should know the feelings they want to create in the judge, using impact words, labels, metaphors, proverbs or nicknames to increase the emotional impact of the question. The defense attorney should consider whether their demeanor would be appropriate or accepted by the fact finder. Be tuned in to what is going on in the courtroom and be aware of the sensibilities of the fact finder.
+
Cross-examinations are not supposed to be cross.  Your job as the attorney is to persuade the fact finder that a particular aspect of the witness' testimony is wrong.  Being rude or too adversarial is not the best way to persuade.  Only become aggressive when necessary, for instance, if the witness' is non-responsive or has a clear motive.  Remember you should constantly be thinking about the best way to persuade the fact finder to believe your theory of the case.
 +
 
 +
Every question should fulfill a substantive, technical or emotional role.
 +
 
 +
''Substantive:'' question resulting in testimony or facts related specifically to the crime charged  
 +
 
 +
''Technical:'' questions must be technically legal under the jurisdiction's rules of evidence;  question should be phrased carefully to elicit the desired response
 +
 
 +
''Emotional:'' questions should always have an emotional impact on the fact finder; the emotional impact may stem from the substantive nature of the question or how the question was presented by the attorney 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Remember to be aware of your demeanor and the atmosphere in the courtroom.  Presenting a calm, assured presence is often more effective in persuasion than verbose theatricality, but measure the fact finders individually and determine which style works best.
  
Cross-examination can be confrontational as when the defense attorney attacks the witness credibility by challenging the veracity of witness testimony or cross-examination may be informational as when the defense attorney presents facts, through cross-examination, that support a defense theory of the case.
 
  
 
== Cross-Examination and the [[Theory of the Case]] ==
 
== Cross-Examination and the [[Theory of the Case]] ==

Revision as of 13:43, 17 June 2010