Cross-examination

events that took place. Mark Rohr was sworn under oath and was cross-examined by the defendant’s attorney. The attorney stood up and walked to the podium. I found it rather intriguing that while the attorney spoke the Plaintiff’s attorney did not stand up or speak; except in one incidence when she argued relevance . It was during the cross-examination that the attorney laid a clear picture of the events underlying the case. Cross- examination occurred as the attorney spoke a question, and the witness

complete his cross examination of prosecution witnesses. s 138 of the Evidence Act, 1950 (EA) - Order of examinations and direction of re-examination (1) Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then, if the adverse party so desires, cross-examined then, if the party calling them so desires, re-examined. (2) The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief

have to adopt to prove his client in the right. Further, the paper is also a discussion upon facts as to whether an Attorney can purposely cross question a witness, and mislead the court just to prove his client not guilty. Here the main purpose of the argument starts with the fact whether a defense attorney is ethically right when he decides to purposely cross-examine the prosecutor’s witness just to mislead the court, when he knows that the witness is saying the truth, and does so only to discredit

job to do, and doing so requires cross examination. It can be stated that the real reason to conduct “Cross Examination” is to find answers to questions of fact. This can be stated to be the stage in a trial where the other party questions witnesses. The main reason to conduct cross-examination could be to find out facts that would turn out to be favorable for the case, to challenge the statements given by the witness. A counsel usually conducts cross-examination but the accused person can also conduct

I chose to do my open-court observation on criminal cases. Criminal cases usually involve attorneys that try to prove their argument to the judge. I felt as though this setting would be more interesting to sit and observe versus a civil case where you have two people trying to settle a dispute. Its interesting to see how actual attorneys and judges act in a courtroom instead of what is portrayed on TV. My local courthouse which is in a police station holds preliminary hearings. A preliminary hearing

While explaining regarding the examination in chief, Mr Rahmat had tried his best to give as simple meaning of it. He stated that examination in chief is actually a witness which being called to give evidence, s/he will be questioned first by either public prosecutor or the advocate representing them. The purpose of this step is to elicit from the witness all the facts supporting that party's case that are within the personal knowledge of that witness. From this step also the witnesses called may

1 Introduction of policy Cross-examination is a vital part of gathering information and evidence about the occurrence and details of the crime to decide the outcome accurately. The sexual assault complainant is who usually experiences the most of cross examination. The reform to limit the cross examination of sexual assault complainants is established in the following acts; Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 (Vic), Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic), Criminal Procedure

Gutierrez cross-examines Wilds, and questions him in a strong, suggestive tone. Her questions are leading and complex; she ends her questions with “were, they not” or “is it not.” Gutierrez was telling Wilds the information in a intimidating manner to scare Wilds to say yes, Ma’am. Additionally, Wilds responded to the questions swiftly at trial, which makes him sound credible. Gutierrez continued her cross-examination for five days like this and did not realize the effect her harsh tone will have

A refutation is a statement or action that proves that a particular claim is incorrect while a rebuttal on the hand provides evidence that counters these contradictions in defense of the writer claim ("Purdue OWL: Establishing Arguments," n.p). An example of a claim could be that ‘drug and alcohol abuse is the greatest problem among students in most universities.’ This claim could be refuted in many ways; the first refutation could be that students go to colleges to learn and get skills and for this

154 of the Act provides for impeachment of credit of the witness by the party who calls such a witness. This may be done with the Court’s discretion. The party can put any question to the witness which might be put by the opposite party in a cross examination. The party which is so permitted is not disallowed from relying on the any part of evidence provided by the hostile witness.This helps the party to extract the truth. This is one of the prime remedies that a party has against a hostile witness