Difference between revisions of "Cross-Examination"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchLine 168: | Line 168: | ||
== 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 | + | 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 impeachment may be direct, which is typical in cross-examinations 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 in 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: | ||
− | === Bias, interest, motive, prejudice, corruption, plea deal etc. === | + | === Bias, interest, motive, prejudice, corruption, plea deal, etc. === |
The most common method of impeaching the credibility of a witness is bias, particularly when a witness has a personal relationship with the victim. Similarly, a witness who has been given a special deal by the prosecution has a strong incentive to lie. | The most common method of impeaching the credibility of a witness is bias, particularly when a witness has a personal relationship with the victim. Similarly, a witness who has been given a special deal by the prosecution has a strong incentive to lie. | ||
Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
=== Prior convictions and bad acts === | === Prior convictions and bad acts === | ||
− | 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 | + | 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 substantiate or undermine the honesty of a witness are the most powerful. Prior bad acts are also helpful |
+ | on cross, if admissible. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the United States, prior bad acts are not admissible to substantiate a subsequent claim of the same bad act. Thus, evidence of prior burglaries cannot be used to prove a defendant is guilty of burglary. 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. | ||
=== Prior dishonest conduct === | === Prior dishonest conduct === | ||
− | Prior dishonest conduct, like prior convictions for tax evasion or perjury, may be admissible | + | Prior dishonest conduct, like prior convictions for tax evasion or perjury, may be admissible for credibility purposes. |
=== Specific contradictions / reality === | === Specific contradictions / reality === | ||
Line 190: | Line 193: | ||
=== 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' | + | A powerful method of impeachment during cross-examination is to attack a witness' ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate. For instance, in a case of eyewitness misidentification, the defense attorney may attack a witness' vision by showing the witness was not wearing her glasses at the time of the incident. |
=== Prior inconsistent statements === | === Prior inconsistent statements === | ||
− | A defense attorney can also impeach a witness | + | A defense attorney can also impeach a witness through prior inconsistent statements during cross-examination. This type of impeachment simultaneously undermines the witness's credibility and establishes a question of fact for the jury. There are at least two ways of looking at prior inconsistent statements. In some cases, the lawyer will want to argue that the first statement is the most accurate of the two. In other cases, the lawyer may argue that the second statement is more reliable. In some cases, the lawyer may simply want to show that the witness is totally unreliable. |
− | Following is a three-step guide to impeachment | + | Following is a three-step guide to impeachment through inconsistent statements when the goal is to bolster the credibility of the witness's first statement: |
*Step 1: Commit the witness to the statement by asking leading questions. | *Step 1: Commit the witness to the statement by asking leading questions. | ||
− | *Step 2: Commit the witness to the circumstances surrounding the statement that increases | + | *Step 2: Commit the witness to the circumstances surrounding the statement that increases the chance that the statement was accurate. |
*Step 3: Confront the witness with the contradiction. | *Step 3: Confront the witness with the contradiction. | ||
Line 206: | Line 209: | ||
== Refreshing Recollection == | == Refreshing Recollection == | ||
− | By the time a case goes to trial several months may have passed since the alleged incident | + | By the time a case goes to trial, several months may have passed since the alleged incident. Therefore, it is common for witnesses to not remember certain facts. Sometimes, a witness may have provided testimony to police officers or investigators early in a case. In some jurisdictions the court may permit the defense attorney to "refresh" the recollection of the witness by providing them with a copy of their own statements. If refreshing recollection is permissible in your jurisdiction, you should be familiar with the steps necessary to establish foundation for the procedure in court. |
== Browne v. Dunne: Limits on Impeachment == | == Browne v. Dunne: Limits on Impeachment == |