EFFECTIVE CROSS EXAMINATION. By: Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan IBP-Davao 9 December 2010. INTRODUCTION. Cross-examination in the words of Wigmore, “is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”.
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation
Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement.Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien.Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.
Why cross-examination is difficult: Not rehearsed. Two difficult decisions: (a) whether or not to cross-examine, and (b) when to stop. 3. Requires special ability to communicate with the witness.
What is effective cross-examination? One that successfully accomplishes the goals of the cross-examiner. The net effect is to further the theory of the cross-examiner’s case.
The need for preparation The key to a successful cross-examination is thorough preparation before trial. Preparation involves a complete mastery of the facts.
Which is the more important purpose or objective? The more important objective is to elicit admissions favorable to the theory of the cross-examiner. The cross-examiner should always consider eliciting favorable testimony from the witness before attempting a destructive cross-examination.
When to cross-examine? You must appraise the advantages and disadvantages, and weigh the risks. Ask yourself the following questions: a. Has the witness hurt your case?
b. Is the witness important? c. Was the testimony of the witness credible? d. Did the witness leave something out on direct examination that might get in if there is cross-examination?
4. You should also be a good actor. 5. A fair and courteous manner is more effective. 6. “Be mild with the wild, shrewd with the crafty, confiding with the honest, merciful to the young, the frail, or the fearful, rough to the ruffian, and a thunderbolt to the liar.”
Cardinal principles of cross-examination The questions must be directed toward a specific goal. Start and end crisply. 3. Know the probable answer to your question before you ask the question.
Listen to the answer of the witness. Don’t argue with witness. 6. Don’t ask one question too many. Have your cross-examination establish as few basic points as possible. 8. Don’t repeat the direct examination.
Control of the Witness Control of the witness is critical. The objective is to require the witness to answer only the question put to him.
Leading questions only Never use a question that is not strictly leading. The question must declare the answer. 3. Avoid “soft” or open leading questions.
Examples: a) “Was it cold on the night in question?” b)Did you see another man along with the defendant?” c) Were you speeding down Ayala Avenue?”
What are the advantages of the leading question? It limits the response requested of the witness. It permits the advocate to choose his own words in describing the event or matter with which the witness is confronted.
Examples: Q: What did the police officer do next? A: The police officer subdued the defendant.
Compare to: Q: The police officer smashed Mr. Santos across the mouth with his night stick? A: Yes, sir.
Example: Q: Did you put that in your report? A: No, I didn’t.
Compare to: Q: Nowhere in your report did you ever mention that? A: No, I didn’t.
What is the meaning of “The question must declare the answer? A true leading question does not merely suggest the answer, it declares the answer . The leading question must be a “questment”, i.e., a question that is phrased as a statement. The question is a short declaratory statement with a question mark .
Example: • How do you feel about drinking? b) Do you like to drink? c) You like to drink?
One new fact per question Ask a single new fact per question. The purpose is to isolate the fact in dispute.
Example: • See Spot? b) See Spot run? c) See Spot run home?
Another example: • You hit him? • You hit him with your fists? c) You hit him hard with your fists?
Example: Instead of asking the witness the question: “You saw the six-foot, five-inch, 225-pound accused beat the five-foot, four-inch 145 pound victim?”, the following one-fact per question method builds up emotion and creates interest as the individual facts pile up:
Question 1: Q: You saw the fight? A: Yes. Question 2: Q: John, the big guy, was fighting? A: Yes.
Question 3: Q: John was six-feet, five-inches tall? A: Yes. Question 4: Q: John is a big man? A: Yes.
Question 5: Q: Dave is only five-feet, four-inches? A: Yes. Question 6: Q: Dave is a much smaller boy? A: Yes.
Question 7: Q: John weighed 225 pounds? A: Yes. Question 8: Q: Dave is 155 pounds? A: About that.
Question 9: Q: John was a much bigger person. A: Yes. Question 10: Q: John was a much heavier person. A: Yes.
Connexion au compte
Connectez-vous pour publier votre contenu sur SlideServe.