Peter Small of The Star has a great article today on cross-examinations. He interviews several lawyers for tips that can be useful for any aspiring litigator.
This site is intended to provide a resource for those interested in law. Current law students, graduates preparing for their bar exam, and members of the general public, can all benefit from a deeper understanding of the legal framework that helps shape our society.
You must recognise that there is no rule so cardinal as not to allow exceptio. There are exceptions to each and every of the 10 cardinal rules. That is why (presumably) cross is referred to so frequently as an “art” and not a “science”.
I am a prosecutor, entitled to no disclosure, for example. If I were to follow the 4th commandment, as detailed above, I would have little to ask. Your rules are fine as a foundation for litigation, but the true “art” is knowing when and to what degree to transgress them. I am in doubt that can be put into writing.
In a provincial offence matter in which I represented myself. The JP would not allow me to ask leading questions of the prosecution’s witnesses or put evidence to them that was relative to my case but not put forward by the prosecutor. What do you do then?
Where does it say that you may ask leading questions of the opposition’s witnesses or put forward evidence to them relative to the case?
Francis Wellman’s classic “The Art of Cross-Examination” fell into the public domain, so I’ve converted it into electronic format and have spent the last week editing and formatting it to make it easier to print out or read online.
Also never ask “why” (although arguably that falls under not allowing the witness to explain his/her answer).
KC: Also rule 3. “Why” is basically the most open-ended, and therefore worst, question one could possibly ask.
You must recognise that there is no rule so cardinal as not to allow exceptio. There are exceptions to each and every of the 10 cardinal rules. That is why (presumably) cross is referred to so frequently as an “art” and not a “science”.
I am a prosecutor, entitled to no disclosure, for example. If I were to follow the 4th commandment, as detailed above, I would have little to ask. Your rules are fine as a foundation for litigation, but the true “art” is knowing when and to what degree to transgress them. I am in doubt that can be put into writing.
FT
In a provincial offence matter in which I represented myself. The JP would not allow me to ask leading questions of the prosecution’s witnesses or put evidence to them that was relative to my case but not put forward by the prosecutor. What do you do then?
Where does it say that you may ask leading questions of the opposition’s witnesses or put forward evidence to them relative to the case?
Francis Wellman’s classic “The Art of Cross-Examination” fell into the public domain, so I’ve converted it into electronic format and have spent the last week editing and formatting it to make it easier to print out or read online.
To read it online, just go to: http://www.TheArtofCrossExamination.com
Best wishes!
-Elliott