Difference between revisions of "Cross-Examination"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 320: | Line 320: | ||
In some jurisdictions the special rule of Browne v. Dunne may apply. Dunne is a "fairness" rule that guarantees that a witness that subject to cross-examination has the opportunity to agree or contradict evidence introduced in contradiction of the witness's testimony. | In some jurisdictions the special rule of Browne v. Dunne may apply. Dunne is a "fairness" rule that guarantees that a witness that subject to cross-examination has the opportunity to agree or contradict evidence introduced in contradiction of the witness's testimony. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Cross-Examination Hypothetical== | ||
| + | |||
| + | CASE FILE: Sahil Kumar was shocked when police came to his home and arrested him for robbery. He was taken to the police station, where a 76-year-old man identified him as having stolen his wallet at the Chawri market that morning. Kumar admitted he was at the market that morning, but insists that he is innocent. He has visible bruises on his face, and claims the police forced him to confess to the crime by torturing him for two days, before producing him in front of the magistrate. As a result of your investigation you have identified four potential witnesses who may appear at trial: A pickpocket who identified Sahil Kumar as the thief, the victim, the victim's doctor, and the police officer who arrested Kumar. | ||
