Difference between revisions of "Cross-Examination"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchm (→Background) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Cross-examination is the moment in a trial when the defense attorney is permitted to ask questions of the prosecution's witnesses. Through cross-examination, a defense attorney can present their own evidence and develop a theory of the case using government witnesses. Cross-examination is important because it may be the only time/means for the criminal defense attorney to get before the judge facts, inferences, and impressions which are necessary to the defendant's [[Theory of the Case | theory of the case]]. | Cross-examination is the moment in a trial when the defense attorney is permitted to ask questions of the prosecution's witnesses. Through cross-examination, a defense attorney can present their own evidence and develop a theory of the case using government witnesses. Cross-examination is important because it may be the only time/means for the criminal defense attorney to get before the judge facts, inferences, and impressions which are necessary to the defendant's [[Theory of the Case | theory of the case]]. | ||
| − | Direct examination and cross-examination have very different purposes and techniques. Direct examination requires the witness to tell a story. The goal of direct examination is for the criminal defender to elicit the witness's story in the witness's own words in a manner that will advance the overall theory of the case. | + | [[Direct examination]] and cross-examination have very different purposes and techniques. Direct examination requires the witness to tell a story. The goal of direct examination is for the criminal defender to elicit the witness's story in the witness's own words in a manner that will advance the overall theory of the case. |
Cross-examination, on the other hand, is a selective, targeted attack on the prosecutor's theory of the case. It is not simply rehashing the testimony that was developed during the direct examination of the witness. The criminal defender seeks to develop points that will show that the witness's testimony is inconsistent with other testimony or evidence; that the witness is biased against the defendant; that the witness has a motive to testify against the defendant; that the witness (if he is a co-defendant) had the opportunity to commit the crime; that the witness lacks knowledge of the facts and the evidence in the case; and that the witness was unable to see, hear, perceive, and observe the major events in the case. | Cross-examination, on the other hand, is a selective, targeted attack on the prosecutor's theory of the case. It is not simply rehashing the testimony that was developed during the direct examination of the witness. The criminal defender seeks to develop points that will show that the witness's testimony is inconsistent with other testimony or evidence; that the witness is biased against the defendant; that the witness has a motive to testify against the defendant; that the witness (if he is a co-defendant) had the opportunity to commit the crime; that the witness lacks knowledge of the facts and the evidence in the case; and that the witness was unable to see, hear, perceive, and observe the major events in the case. | ||
