Comments on: The “Art” of the Cross-Examination http://lawiscool.com/2009/01/06/the-art-of-the-cross-examination/?nucrss=1 The law school blog and podcast from Canada Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Elliott http://lawiscool.com/2009/01/06/the-art-of-the-cross-examination/comment-page-1/#comment-5624 Elliott Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:52:11 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1245#comment-5624 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: www.TheArtofCrossExamination.com Best wishes! -Elliott 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

]]> By: David G http://lawiscool.com/2009/01/06/the-art-of-the-cross-examination/comment-page-1/#comment-4951 David G Sun, 08 Mar 2009 02:47:23 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1245#comment-4951 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? 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?

]]> By: Fred T. http://lawiscool.com/2009/01/06/the-art-of-the-cross-examination/comment-page-1/#comment-4651 Fred T. Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:31:39 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1245#comment-4651 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 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

]]> By: Lawrence Gridin http://lawiscool.com/2009/01/06/the-art-of-the-cross-examination/comment-page-1/#comment-4510 Lawrence Gridin Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:07:15 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1245#comment-4510 KC: Also rule 3. "Why" is basically the most open-ended, and therefore worst, question one could possibly ask. KC: Also rule 3. “Why” is basically the most open-ended, and therefore worst, question one could possibly ask.

]]> By: KC http://lawiscool.com/2009/01/06/the-art-of-the-cross-examination/comment-page-1/#comment-4509 KC Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:00:13 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1245#comment-4509 Also never ask "why" (although arguably that falls under not allowing the witness to explain his/her answer). Also never ask “why” (although arguably that falls under not allowing the witness to explain his/her answer).

]]>