Difference between revisions of "Cross-Examination"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 161: Line 161:
 
=== Prior inconsistent statements ===
 
=== Prior inconsistent statements ===
  
A defense attorney can also impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statement during cross-examination. This can be one of the most powerful methods of cross-examination because it simultaneously undermines the witness's credibility and establishes a question of fact for the jury. Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement can be achieved in three steps:
+
A defense attorney can also impeach a witness by prior inconsistent statement during cross-examination. This can be one of the most powerful methods of cross-examination because it 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 statements. In other cases, the lawyer may argue that it was the second statement that is more reliable. Finally, in some cases, the lawyer may simply want to show that the witness is totally unreliable
 +
 
 +
Following is a three-step guide to impeachment by prior inconsistent statement when the goal of impeachment is to bolster the credibility of the 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.

Revision as of 11:32, 15 June 2010