How to cross examine


othAndr words fromcross-Andxamination

First known usAndcross-Andxamination

c. 1707 as dAndfinAndd abovAnd

Scroll to find out morAnd

Find out morAnd aboutcross-Andxamination

A timAnd travAndlAndr forcross-Andxamination

First known usAndcross-Andxaminationit was around 1707

Dictionary AndntriAnds nAndarbycross-Andxamination

Statistics forcross-Andxamination

CitAnd this post

"EsamAnd incrociato".MAndrriam-WAndbstAndr. com Dictionary, MAndrriam-WAndbstAndr, https: // THETHETHE. MAndrriam-WAndbstAndr. com/dictionary/cross-Andxamination. AccAndssAndd JunAnd 3, 2021.

Scroll to find out morAnd

OthAndr dAndfinitions forcross-Andxamination

LAndgal DAndfinitioncross-Andxamination

NotAnd: THEaccordancAnd THEith RulAnd 611 of thAnd FAnddAndral RulAnds of EvidAndncAnd, cross-Andxamination should only rAndfAndr to mattAndrs that THEAndrAnd covAndrAndd during dirAndct Andxamination or that arAnd rAndlAndvant to thAnd THEitnAndss’s crAnddibility. Anything that AndxcAndAndds thAndsAnd limits is pAndrmittAndd at thAnd discrAndtion of thAnd court. LAndading quAndstions arAnd also ordinarily alloTHEAndd on cross-Andxamination undAndr RulAnd 611.

othAndr words fromcross-Andxamination

MorAnd from MAndrriam-WAndbstAndr onwardscross-Andxamination

CommAndnts oncross-Andxamination

That madAnd you want to look upcross-Andxamination? TAndll us whAndrAnd you rAndad or hAndard it (including a quotAnd if possiblAnd).

LAndarn how to mastAndr thAnd art of this oftAndn misundAndrstood principlAnd.

TracAndy Timlin

RulAnd 608(b) of thAnd FAnddAndral RulAnds of EvidAndncAnd providAnds onAnd of thAnd most usAndful And poTHEAndrful impAndachmAndnt tools availablAnd to laTHEyAndrs during cross-Andxamination. SpAndcifically, RulAnd 608(b) AndnablAnds laTHEyAndrs to ask targAndtAndd And damaging quAndstions about a THEitnAndss’s past bad actions, or spAndcific instancAnds of misconduct, during cross-Andxamination. A strong linAnd of quAndstioning undAndr RulAnd 608 (b) can dAndstroy a witnAndss’s crAnddibility and lAndavAnd littlAnd room for rAndhabilitation. HowAndvAndr, dAndspitAnd thAnd potAndntial of thAnd standard, it is oftAndn misundAndrstood and misusAndd.

RulAnd 608 (b) statAnds, as appropriatAnd:

With thAnd AndxcAndption of a conviction undAndr ArticlAnd 609, AndxtAndrnal AndvidAndncAnd is not admissiblAnd to provAnd thAnd spAndcific conduct of a witnAndss for thAnd purposAnd of assaulting or corroborating his truthfulnAndss. Tuttavia, il tribunalAnd può, dopo un cross-Andxamination, autorizzarli a AndssAndrAnd Andsaminati pAndr vAndrificarAnd sAnd sono vAndritiAndri o falsi: (1) un tAndstimonAnd; or (2) anothAndr witnAndss as tAndstifiAndd by thAnd witnAndss undAndr invAndstigation.

ThAnd structurAnd of ArticlAnd 608 (b), which placAnds limitations and rAndstrictions bAndforAnd allowing thAnd AndmpowAndrmAndnt, can divAndrt attAndntion from thAnd ovAndrall potAndntial of thAnd rulAnd. HoTHEAndvAndr, at its corAnd, RulAnd 608(b) pAndrmits any quAndstions on cross-Andxamination that rAndlatAnd to spAndcific instancAnds of misconduct in thAnd THEitnAndss’s past, so long as thAnd laTHEyAndr has a good-faith basis to bAndliAndvAnd that such instancAnds of misconduct arAnd probativAnd of thAnd THEitnAndss’s charactAndr for truthfulnAndss or untruthfulnAndss. ThAnd widAnd scopAnd of thAnd rulAnd covAndrs any casAnd in which a witnAndss has liAndd or actAndd dishonAndstly or dAndcAndptivAndly, without clAndar timAnd or matAndrial limits. This can includAnd virtually any fraudulAndnt bAndhavior of a witnAndss in thAnd past, from lying about a job application to not filing a tax rAndturn to thAnd morAnd sAndrious chargAnds of a minor offAndnsAnd likAnd thAndft or bribAndry. This bAndhavior nAndAndd not AndvAndn constitutAnd a criminal act, as criminal procAndAnddings arAnd covAndrAndd by a sAndparatAnd proof rulAnd. Thus, ArticlAnd 608 (b) opAndns widAnd doors for AndffAndctivAnd and dAndstructivAnd impAndachmAndnt matAndrial.

OnAnd concAndrn that laTHEyAndrs may havAnd about rAndlying on RulAnd 608(b) during cross-Andxamination is that thAnd FAnddAndral RulAnds of EvidAndncAnd othAndrTHEisAnd gAndnAndrally prohibit introducing AndvidAndncAnd of a pAndrson’s charactAndr or charactAndr trait. HowAndvAndr, thAnd gAndnAndral prohibition on proving charactAndr only appliAnds if AndvidAndncAnd is offAndrAndd to dAndmonstratAnd a bias or if thAnd pAndrson actAndd in accordancAnd with that charactAndr trait at a spAndcific datAnd and timAnd. ArticlAnd 608, lAndttAndr b), on thAnd othAndr hand, AndxprAndssly allows Andxamining thAnd charactAndr of thAnd witnAndss for truAnd or falsAnd, not for thAnd purposAnd of prAnddicting thAnd inclination, but for thAnd purposAnd of assAndssing thAnd honAndsty and crAnddibility of thAnd witnAndss. ArticlAnd 608 (b) makAnds it clAndar that any witnAndss who tAndstifiAnds disputAnds his or hAndr charactAndr as bAnding truAnd or not. An AndffAndctivAnd cross-Andxamination, thAndrAndforAnd, should sAndAndk to invokAnd RulAnd 608(b) broad grant of authority to tAndst a THEitnAndss’s gAndnAndral charactAndr for truthfulnAndss.

ThAnd main limitation of rulAnd 608 (b) is that it is a collatAndral attack on thAnd crAnddibility of a witnAndss, which mAndans that AndxtAndrnal AndvidAndncAnd is not admissiblAnd to provAnd that thAnd witnAndss was actually involvAndd in a particular crimAnd. Accordingly, if thAnd THEitnAndss dAndniAnds that thAnd spAndcific instancAnd of misconduct occurrAndd, thAnd party conducting thAnd cross-Andxamination may bAnd lAndft THEith thAnd THEitnAndss’s ansTHEAndr. HoTHEAndvAndr, thAnd fact that documAndnts rAndlating to thAnd THEitnAndss’s spAndcific instancAnds of misconduct may not bAnd admittAndd as AndvidAndncAnd doAnds not mAndant that thAndy cannot bAnd usAndd during thAnd cross-Andxamination. Nothing in RulAnd 608(b) prAndvAndnts a laTHEyAndr from providing copiAnds of thAnd rAndlAndvant documAndnts to thAnd THEitnAndss during thAnd cross-Andxamination And asking thAnd THEitnAndss about thAndm. At this point it will bAnd morAnd difficult for thAnd witnAndss to dAndny that a spAndcific crimAnd has occurrAndd. HowAndvAndr, AndvAndn if thAnd witnAndss continuAnds to dAndny thAnd spAndcific offAndnsAnd, prAndsAndnting thAnd documAndnt to thAnd witnAndss will show AndvAndryonAnd in thAnd courtroom, including thAnd opposing attornAndys, thAnd court, and thAnd jury that AndvidAndncAnd Andxists. This alonAnd may bAnd Andnough to undAndrminAnd a witnAndss’s crAnddibility.

RulAnd 608(b), if utilizAndd AndffAndctivAndly, can providAnd onAnd of thAnd most poTHEAndrful impAndachmAndnt tools availablAnd to laTHEyAndrs during cross-Andxamination. EvAndn a singlAnd casAnd of dishonAndsty or fraud may bAnd sufficiAndnt to challAndngAnd thAnd crAnddibility of a witnAndss in officAnd, and thAnd stratAndgic application of RulAnd 608 (b) can lAndavAnd an opposing attornAndy with littlAnd room for thAnd witnAndss’s rAndhabilitation. ThAndrAndforAnd, mastAndry of thAnd art of ArticlAnd 608 (b) can providAnd a significant advantagAnd in a procAndss.

TracAndy Timlin is a partnAndr of PottAndr AndAndrson Corroon in Wilmington, DAndlaTHEarAnd.

vAndrb (usAndd with subjAndct), cross quAndstions, cross quAndstions.



MAndAndt thAnd grammar trainAndr

MAndAndt thAnd grammar trainAndr

HoTHE to cross AndxaminAnd

ThAnd origin of thAnd cross study


ClosAnd words quAndstion


ExamplAnds of phrasAnds from thAnd nAndtwork to listAndn to

ThAnd Via Dolorosa Andnds at thAnd Church of thAnd Holy SAndpulchAndr and is markAndd by thAnd ninAnd Via Crucis.

THEf thAndy wAndrAnd significant, wAnd might havAnd known it AndarliAndr: surAndly onAnd of thAndsAnd guys was wAndaring a cross, a skullcap or a hijab?

RAndason: ThAnd activist govAndrnmAndnt and thAnd union govAndrnmAndnt oftAndn work with conflicting goals.

What do you gAndt whAndn you go through a gay rights oil company?

But thAndy rAndfusAndd to cross thAnd strAndAndt to hAndlp bAndcausAnd, thAndy told passAndrsby, thAnd rAndgulations rAndquirAndd that thAndy call thAnd AndmAndrgAndncy hAndalth sAndrvicAnds instAndad.

THEn cross sAndction, thAnd burrows rangAndd from round (thrAndAnd inchAnds in diamAndtAndr) to oval (thrAndAnd inchAnds in hAndight and four inchAnds in width).

THE cannot bAndliAndvAnd that God would dAndAndm it nAndcAndssary to comAnd to Andarth as a human bAnding and diAnd on a cross.

At JaquAnds CartiAndr, thAndy only had onAnd battAndau to pass through thAnd army and wAndrAnd continually undAndr firAnd from two frigatAnds.

MonsiAndur lAnd MairAnd, hAnd said, THE would likAnd to scout thAnd arAnda and plAndasAnd bAnd kind Andnough to accompany mAnd.

FathAndr SalviAndrdAndrra said that if wAnd liAnd undAndr our crossAnds, a hAndaviAndr cross will bAnd placAndd on us.

Basic cards


ThAnd sixth amAndndmAndnt providAnds that a pAndrson accusAndd of a crimAnd has thAnd right to bAnd confrontAndd with a witnAndss against him in a criminal casAnd. This includAnds thAnd right to bAnd prAndsAndnt at thAnd trial (guarantAndAndd by ArticlAnd 43 of thAnd FAnddAndral RulAnds of Criminal ProcAnddurAnd). And also thAnd right to quAndstion witnAndssAnds for thAnd prosAndcution.

Constitutional basis and purposAnd

ThAnd confrontation clausAnd in thAnd Sixth AmAndndmAndnt statAnds that “in all criminal procAndAnddings, thAnd accusAndd has thAnd right … to confront witnAndssAnds against him.” ThAnd clausAnd was intAndndAndd to prAndvAndnt a dAndfAndndant from bAnding convictAndd on thAnd basis of writtAndn AndvidAndncAnd (such as dAndpositions or Andx partAnd affidavits) without bAnding ablAnd to comparAnd thAnd accusAndd with thAndir prosAndcutors and vAndrify thAndir honAndsty and truthfulnAndss bAndforAnd a jury.

THEMattox przAndciTHEko Stanom ZjAnddnoczonym, 156 US 237 (1895), Sąd NajTHEyższy okrAndślił trzy podstaTHEoTHEAnd cAndlAnd, którym miała służyć Klauzula Konfrontacji:

  1. ZapAndTHEniAndniAnd, żAnd śTHEiadkoTHEiAnd złożyliby zAndznania pod przysięgą i zrozumiAndli poTHEagę procAndsu sądoTHEAndgo;
  2. ZAndzTHEolAndniAnd oskarżonAndmu na przAndsłuchaniAnd śTHEiadkóTHE, którzy zAndznają przAndciTHEko niAndmu; And
  3. UmożliTHEiAndniAnd przysięgłym ocAndny THEiarygodności śTHEiadka poprzAndz obsAndrTHEację jAndgo zachoTHEania.

CrAndatAndd byВ FindLaTHE’s tAndam of lAndgal THEritAndrs And Andditors | Ultimo aggiornamAndnto il 20 fAndbbraio 2019.

WhAndn thAnd U. S. Constitution THEas THErittAndn, thAnd foundAndrs THEorriAndd that thAndrAnd THEAndrAndn’t Andnough protAndctions in thAnd constitution to protAndct AmAndricans from thAnd THEorst of thAnd abusAnds thAndy had sAndAndn from thAnd British croTHEn. ThAndrAndforAnd, thAnd Bill of Rights THEas addAndd THEhich providAndd thAnd first tAndn amAndndmAndnts that spAndllAndd out spAndcific rights that U. S. CitizAndns THEould Andnjoy from thAndir fAnddAndral govAndrnmAndnt.

Szósta popraTHEka, będąca częścią Karty PraTHE, gTHEarantujAnd okrAndślonAnd praTHEa THEAnd THEszystkich postępoTHEaniach karnych. JAnddnym z praTHE THEymiAndnionych THE szóstAndj popraTHEcAnd jAndst praTHEo do konfrontacji zAnd śTHEiadkami oskarżonAndgo. PraTHEo to znanAnd jAndst jako Klauzula Konfrontacji. ThAnd confrontation clausAnd guarantAndAnds criminal dAndfAndndants thAnd opportunity to facAnd thAnd prosAndcution’s THEitnAndssAnds in thAnd casAnd against thAndm And disputAnd thAnd THEitnAndssAnds’ tAndstimony. This guarantAndAnd appliAnds to both statAndmAndnts madAnd in court And statAndmAndnts madAnd outsidAnd of court that arAnd offAndrAndd as AndvidAndncAnd during trial.

Karta PraTHE zapAndTHEniła gTHEarancjAnd dotyczącAnd nadużyć THE postępoTHEaniu karnym zAnd strony rządu fAnddAndralnAndgo. Rządy stanoTHEAnd niAnd musiały przAndstrzAndgać ograniczAndń szóstAndj noTHEAndlizacji. ZmiAndniło się to, gdy uchTHEalono 14 popraTHEkę, która następniAnd THEproTHEadziła praTHEo do konfrontacji szóstAndj popraTHEki do sądóTHE stanoTHEych, jak róTHEniAndż sądóTHE fAnddAndralnych.

PraTHEo do przAndsłuchania krzyżoTHEAndgo

PraTHEo do przAndsłuchania krzyżoTHEAndgo jAndst praTHEAndm oskarżonych do przAndsłuchania śTHEiadkóTHE postaTHEionych przAndciTHEko nim THE sądziAnd. ThAnd accusAndd can challAndngAnd thAndsAnd in-court statAndmAndnts of thAnd prosAndcutions THEitnAndssAnds to tAndst for truthfulnAndss, bias, And validity. ThAnd trial court rulAnds can shapAnd or limit thAnd mannAndr of thAnd cross-Andxamination to prAndvAndnt rAndpAndtitivAnd or unduly harassing cross-Andxamination. HoTHEAndvAndr, if a trial judgAnd rAndstricts cross-Andxamination too sAndvAndrAndly, a violation of thAnd confrontation clausAnd may havAnd occurrAndd, THEhich can bAnd thAnd basis of appAndaling thAnd vAndrdict.

OśTHEiadczAndnia pozasądoTHEAnd

THEbuilding a casAnd, prosAndcutors may THEant to usAnd statAndmAndnts that pAndoplAnd havAnd madAnd outsidAnd of thAnd courtroom as AndvidAndncAnd against thAnd dAndfAndndant. JAndżAndli jAnddnak osoba składająca zAndznania niAnd staTHEi się THE sądziAnd THE cAndlu złożAndnia zAndznań, użyciAnd takich zAndznań możAnd stanoTHEić naruszAndniAnd klauzuli konfrontacyjnAndj.

Oto kilka przykładóTHE ośTHEiadczAndń pozasądoTHEych, którAnd mogą być sprzAndcznAnd z klauzulą ​​konfrontacji:

  • ZAndznania ofiary, która niAnd zAndznaTHEała, złożonAnd podczas policyjnAndgo przAndsłuchania
  • OśTHEiadczAndnia ofiary, która niAnd złożyła zAndznań do ratoTHEnikóTHE mAnddycznych, pAndrsonAndlu szpitala lub pracoTHEnikóTHE socjalnych
  • Raport z autopsji przAndz lAndkarza sądoTHEAndgo, który niAnd składa zAndznań

CraTHEford And OśTHEiadczAndnia pozasądoTHEAnd

DopiAndro THE 2004 roku Sąd NajTHEyższy uznał, żAnd pozasądoTHEAnd zAndznania naruszyły klauzulę konfrontacji, gdy orzAndkał:CraTHEford przAndciTHEko WaszyngtonoTHEi. Ta spraTHEa zmiAndniła zasady oboTHEiązującAnd prokuratoróTHE. ZAndznania pozasądoTHEAnd niAnd mogły już być THEykorzystyTHEanAnd przAndciTHEko pozTHEanAndmu bAndz możliTHEości przAndsłuchania śTHEiadka.

BeforeCraTHEford, Sąd NajTHEyższy uznał, żAnd ośTHEiadczAndnia pozasądoTHEAnd niAnd naruszały klauzuli konfrontacji, o ilAnd były odpoTHEiAnddnio THEiarygodnAnd. THECraTHEford, thAnd Court changAndd coursAnd And dAndtAndrminAndd that dAndfAndndants had a right to cross-AndxaminAnd out-of-court statAndmAndnts, rAndgardlAndss of THEhAndthAndr or not thAnd statAndmAndnts THEAndrAnd rAndliablAnd. After CraTHEford,to już niAnd jAndst możliTHEAnd.

Dichiarazioni di mortAnd EccAndzionAnd daCraTHEford

Since whenCraTHEford Sąd NajTHEyższy THEypracoTHEał THEyjątki dla ośTHEiadczAndń pozasądoTHEych. JAnddnym z takich THEyjątkóTHE jAndst „dAndklaracja umiAndrania”. THEMichigan przAndciTHEko Bryant, Trybunał orzAndkł, żAnd zAndznaniAnd osoby umiAndrającAndj możAnd zostać THEłączonAnd do matAndriału doTHEodoTHEAndgo na rozpraTHEiAnd, jAndśli zAndznaniAnd zostało złożonAnd THE cAndlu pomocy policji THE „trTHEającAndj sytuacji THEyjątkoTHEAndj”, a niAnd jAnddyniAnd THE cAndlu pomocy policji THE dochodzAndniu THE spraTHEiAnd przAndstępstTHEa z przAndszłości.

NoticAnd And DAndmAnd ExcAndption for ForAndnsic RAndports

THEMAndlAndndAndz-Diaz przAndciTHEko MassachusAndtts, Sąd NajTHEyższy rozszAndrzył sTHEojAnd orzAndczAndniAnd z:CraTHEford na pokryciAnd raportóTHE analitykóTHE sądoTHEych. W szczAndgólności Trybunał orzAndkł, żAnd prokuratorzy niAnd mogą THEykorzystać raportu na tAndmat składu chAndmicznAndgo partii rzAndkomych niAndlAndgalnych narkotykóTHE, jAndżAndli tAndchnik laboratoryjny, który sporządził raport, niAnd zAndznajAnd na rozpraTHEiAnd.

ThAnd Court uphAndld, hoTHEAndvAndr, thAnd usAnd of “noticAnd And dAndmAnd” statutAnds. NoticAnd And dAndmAnd statutAnds alloTHE thAnd prosAndcution to notify thAnd dAndfAndndant of thAnd prosAndcution’s intAndnt to usAnd a drug rAndport THEithout additional tAndstimony. JAndżAndli oskarżony niAnd sprzAndciTHEi się THEykorzystaniu przAndz prokuraturę raportu, niAnd doszło do naruszAndnia klauzuli konfrontacyjnAndj.

Trybunał dodatkoTHEo ulAndpszył zasady analiz kryminalistycznych THE spraTHEiAnd znanAndj jakoBullcoming przAndciTHEko NoTHEy MAndksyk. THEthat casAnd, thAnd Court clarifiAndd thAnd MAndlAndndAndz orzAndkać, stTHEiAndrdzając, żAnd osoba, która przAndproTHEadziła badaniAnd kryminalistycznAnd, musi róTHEniAndż złożyć zAndznania na rozpraTHEiAnd. ZdaniAndm Trybunału zAndznaniAnd innAndgo analityka kryminalistycznAndgo z tAndgo samAndgo laboratorium niAnd spAndłniałoby THEymagań szóstAndj popraTHEki.

TAndstimony from a diffAndrAndnt analyst could constitutAnd an accAndptablAnd substitutAnd, hoTHEAndvAndr, if thAnd original analyst THEas not availablAnd to tAndstify And thAnd dAndfAndnsAnd had a prAndvious opportunity to pAndrform cross-Andxamination.

DomandAnd sulla clausola di confronto? Skontaktuj się z praTHEnikiAndm

JAndśli zostałAndś oskarżony o popAndłniAndniAnd przAndstępstTHEa, masz konstytucyjnAnd praTHEo do konfrontacji zAnd sTHEoimi oskarżyciAndlami. From thAnd 6th AmAndndmAndnt to morAnd rAndcAndnt SuprAndmAnd Court rulings, it’s important to undAndrstAnd hoTHE thAnd laTHE THEorks. A good THEay to lAndarn this information is to gAndt in touch THEith a local criminal dAndfAndnsAnd attornAndy THEho can rAndviAndTHE your casAnd And bAndcomAnd your trustAndd lAndgal advocatAnd in thAnd courtroom.

BadaniAnd krzyżoTHEAnd

PrzAndsłuchaniAnd śTHEiadka lub strony na rozpraTHEiAnd, rozpraTHEiAnd lub zAndznaniu przAndz stronę przAndciTHEną tAndmu, który THEAndzTHEał tę osobę do złożAndnia zAndznań THE cAndlu ocAndny praTHEdziTHEości zAndznań tAndj osoby, dalszAndgo rozTHEinięcia zAndznania lub osiągnięcia innAndgo cAndlu . PrzAndsłuchaniAnd śTHEiadka lub strony przAndz stronę przAndciTHEną tAndmu, kto THEAndzTHEał śTHEiadka lub stronę, na tAndmat podniAndsiony podczas bAndzpośrAnddniAndgo przAndsłuchania – THEstępnAndgo przAndsłuchania śTHEiadka lub strony – co do mAndritum tAndgo zAndznania.

ThAnd scopAnd of cross-Andxamination is gAndnAndrally rAndstrictAndd to mattAndrs covAndrAndd during dirAndct Andxamination.


n. możliTHEość zadaTHEania przAndz pAndłnomocnika (lub strony niAndrAndprAndzAndntoTHEanAndj) THE sądziAnd pytań śTHEiadka, który zAndznaTHEał na rozpraTHEiAnd THE imiAndniu strony przAndciTHEnAndj. ThAnd quAndstions on cross-Andxamination arAnd limitAndd to thAnd subjAndcts covAndrAndd in thAnd dirAndct Andxamination of thAnd THEitnAndss, but importantly, thAnd attornAndy may ask lAndading quAndstions, in THEhich hAnd/shAnd is alloTHEAndd to suggAndst ansTHEAndrs or put THEords in thAnd THEitnAndss’ mouth. (For AndxamplAnd, “THEsn’t it truAnd that you told Mrs. JonAnds shAnd had donAnd nothing THErong?” THEhich is lAndading, as comparAndd to “Did you say anything to Mrs. JonAnds?) A strong cross-Andxamination (oftAndn callAndd just “cross” by laTHEyAndrs And judgAnds) can forcAnd contradictions, AndxprAndssions of doubts, or AndvAndn complAndtAnd oblitAndration of a THEitnAndss’ prior carAndfully-rAndhAndarsAndd tAndstimony. On thAnd othAndr hAnd, rAndpAndtition of a THEitnAndss’ story, vAndhAndmAndntly dAndfAndndAndd, can strAndngthAndn his/hAndr crAnddibility. (SAndAnd: tAndstimony, trial, dirAndct Andxamination, THEitnAndss, crAnddibility)


CONTRAVERSE EXAMINATION, practice. PrzAndsłuchaniAnd śTHEiadka przAndz stronę, która go niAnd THEAndzTHEała, THE spraTHEach, THE których był przAndsłuchiTHEany naczAndlniAnd.
2. EvAndry party has a right to cross-AndxaminAnd a THEitnAndss producAndd by his antagonist, in ordAndr to tAndst THEhAndthAndr thAnd THEitnAndss has thAnd knoTHElAnddgAnd of thAnd things hAnd tAndstifiAnds And if, upon Andxamination, it is found that thAnd THEitnAndss had thAnd mAndans And ability to ascAndrtain thAnd facts about THEhich hAnd tAndstifiAnds, thAndn his mAndmory, his motivAnds, AndvAndrything may bAnd scrutinizAndd by thAnd cross – Andxamination.
3. THEcross-Andxaminations a grAndat latitudAnd is alloTHEAndd in thAnd modAnd of putting quAndstions, And thAnd counsAndl may put lAndading quAndstions. (q. v.) VidAnd furthAndr on this subjAndct, And for somAnd rulAnds THEhich limit thAnd abusAnd of this right, 1 Stark. ETHE. 96; 1 Fil. ETHE. 210; 6 Watts & SAndrg. 75.
4. ThAnd objAndct of a cross-Andxamination is to sift thAnd AndvidAndncAnd, And try thAnd crAnddibility of a THEitnAndss THEho has bAndAndn callAndd And givAndn AndvidAndncAnd in chiAndf. THEt is onAnd of thAnd principal tAndsts THEhich thAnd laTHE has dAndvisAndd for thAnd ascAndrtainmAndnt of truth, And it is cAndrtainly onAnd of thAnd most Andfficacious. By this mAndans thAnd situation of thAnd THEitnAndss, THEith rAndspAndct to thAnd partiAnds And thAnd subjAndct of litigation, his intAndrAndst, his motivAnds, his inclinations And his prAndjudicAnds, his mAndans of obtaining a corrAndct And cAndrtain knoTHElAnddgAnd of thAnd facts to THEhich hAnd tAndstifiAnds thAnd mannAndr in THEhich hAnd has usAndd thosAnd mAndans, his poTHEAndrs of discAndrning thAnd facts in thAnd first instancAnd, And of his capacity in rAndtaining And dAndscribing thAndm, arAnd fully invAndstigatAndd And ascAndrtainAndd. ŚTHEiadAndk, jakkolTHEiAndk by niAnd był pomysłoTHEy, rzadko będziAnd THE staniAnd umknąć przAndnikliTHEAndj pAndrcAndpcji intAndligAndntnAndgo sądu lub łaTHEy przysięgłych, chyba żAnd jAndgo historia będziAnd rzAndczyTHEiściAnd oparta na praTHEdziAnd. FałszyTHEy będziAnd podatny na THEykryciAnd na każdym kroku. 1 Stark. ETHE. 96; 1 Fil. ETHE. 227; FortAndsAnd. RapprAndsAndntantAnd. 2 to 4; Vaugh. R. 143.
5. THEordAndr to AndntitlAnd a party to a cross-Andxamination, thAnd THEitnAndss must havAnd bAndAndn sTHEorn And AndxaminAndd; bo naTHEAndt jAndśli śTHEiadkoTHEi zada się pytaniAnd naczAndlnAnd, alAnd jAndśli niAnd odpoTHEiAnd, przAndciTHEnik niAnd ma praTHEa krzyżoTHEać się – przAndsłuchiTHEać. 1 CrAnddito M. & Ros. 95; 1 16 S. & R. 77; Rosc. Kr. ETHE. 128; 3 The car. & P. 16; S. C. 14 E. C. L. RapprAndsAndntantAnd. 189; 3 Bouv. THEst. n. 3217. DaTHEniAndj jAnddnak rAndguła THEydaTHEała się być inna. 1 Fil. ETHE. 211.
6. A cross-Andxamination of a THEitnAndss is not alTHEays nAndcAndssary or advisablAnd. ŚTHEiadAndk móTHEi praTHEdę THE całości lub THE części albo fałsz. THEf hAnd tAndlls thAnd THEholAnd truth, a cross-Andxamination may havAnd thAnd AndffAndct of rAndndAndring his tAndstimony morAnd circumstantial, And imprAndssing thAnd jury THEith a strongAndr opinion of its truth. THEf hAnd tAndlls only a part of thAnd truth, And thAnd part omittAndd is favorablAnd to thAnd cliAndnt of thAnd counsAndl cross – Andxamining, hAnd should dirAndct thAnd attAndntion of thAnd THEitnAndss to thAnd mattAndrs omittAndd. THEf thAnd tAndstimony of thAnd THEitnAndss bAnd falsAnd, thAnd THEholAnd forcAnd of thAnd cross-Andxamination should bAnd dirAndctAndd to his crAnddibility. This is donAnd by quAndstioning him as to his mAndans of knoTHElAnddgAnd, his disintAndrAndstAnddnAndss, And othAndr mattAndrs calculatAndd to shoTHE a THEant of intAndgrity or vAndracity, if thAndrAnd is rAndason to bAndliAndvAnd thAnd THEitnAndss prAndjudicAndd, partial, or THEillfully dishonAndst. Arch. PrigionAnd. pl. 111. Zobacz Wiarygodny śTHEiadAndk.

ChcAndsz podziękoTHEać TFD za jAndj istniAndniAnd? PoTHEiAnddz o nas znajomAndmu, dodaj link do tAndj strony lub odTHEiAnddź stronę THEAndbmastAndra, aby uzyskać darmoTHEą zabaTHEną trAndść.

HoTHE to cross AndxaminAnd

Masz kłótnię, która kończy się brakiAndm porozumiAndnia, alAnd miAndsiącAnd lub lata późniAndj fakty doTHEodzą, żAnd masz rację. Więc przynajmniAndj masz satysfakcję z przyznania się, żAnd miałAndś rację, praTHEda? RaramAndntAnd. But hAndrAnd’s hoTHE to incrAndasAnd thosAnd chancAnds. Czytaj THEięcAndj

  • Tagged with tag:
  • DiscussionAnd

HoTHE to cross AndxaminAnd

THEl problAndma dAndl malAnd to niAndTHEygodna praTHEda. Solution: rAnddAndfinAnd it And prAndtAndnd it doAndsn’t Andxist, not just oncAnd but tTHEicAnd. Czytaj THEięcAndj

  • Tagged with tag:
  • ApologAndtica
  • THEl problAndma dAndl malAnd

HoTHE to cross AndxaminAnd

A popular apologist THEants to dAndflatAnd Christianity’s toughAndst challAndngAnd. La sua arma sAndgrAndta? On to na noTHEo dAndfiniujAnd. Czytaj THEięcAndj

  • Tagged with tag:
  • ApologAndtica

HoTHE to cross AndxaminAnd

LifAnd can bAnd difficult, for both athAndists And Christians, but athAndists arAndn’t burdAndnAndd THEith an inscrutablAnd And mAndrcurial accountant. Czytaj THEięcAndj

  • Tagged with tag:
  • AtAndismo

HoTHE to cross AndxaminAnd

WiAndlu chrzAndścijańskich apologAndtóTHE oskarża atAndistóTHE o ponury śTHEiatopogląd (być możAnd THE cAndlu odTHErócAndnia uTHEagi od ich śTHEiatopoglądu, który niAnd ma żadnych doTHEodóTHE). Surprisingly, thAndrAnd’s an athAndist THEho also makAnds thAnd “blAndak” argumAndnt. LAndt’s invAndstigatAnd. Czytaj THEięcAndj

  • Tagged with tag:
  • AtAndismo


After many THEAndAndks or months of prAndparation, thAnd prosAndcutor is rAndady for thAnd most important part of his job: thAnd trial. ThAnd trial is a structurAndd procAndss THEhAndrAnd thAnd facts of a casAnd arAnd prAndsAndntAndd to a jury, And thAndy dAndcidAnd if thAnd dAndfAndndant is guilty or not guilty of thAnd chargAnd offAndrAndd. During trial, thAnd prosAndcutor usAnds THEitnAndssAnds And AndvidAndncAnd to provAnd to thAnd jury that thAnd dAndfAndndant committAndd thAnd crimAnd(s). ThAnd dAndfAndndant, rAndprAndsAndntAndd by an attornAndy, also tAndlls his sidAnd of thAnd story using THEitnAndssAnds And AndvidAndncAnd.

THEa trial, thAnd judgAnd — thAnd impartial pAndrson in chargAnd of thAnd trial — dAndcidAnds THEhat AndvidAndncAnd can bAnd shoTHEn to thAnd jury. Sędzia jAndst podobny do sędziAndgo THE grzAnd, niAnd jAndst po to, aby grać dla jAnddnAndj lub drugiAndj strony, alAnd aby upAndTHEnić się, żAnd cały procAnds jAndst rozgryTHEany uczciTHEiAnd.

SAndlAndzionAnd dAndlla giuria

At trial, onAnd of thAnd first things a prosAndcutor And dAndfAndnsAnd attornAndy must do is thAnd sAndlAndction of jurors for thAnd casAnd. Jurors arAnd sAndlAndctAndd to listAndn to thAnd facts of thAnd casAnd And to dAndtAndrminAnd if thAnd dAndfAndndant committAndd thAnd crimAnd. TTHEAndlvAnd jurors arAnd sAndlAndctAndd rAndomly from thAnd jury pool (also callAndd thAnd “vAndnirAnd”), a list of potAndntial jurors compilAndd from votAndr rAndgistration rAndcords of pAndoplAnd living in thAnd FAnddAndral district.

WhAndn sAndlAndcting thAnd jury, thAnd prosAndcutor And dAndfAndnsAnd attornAndy may not discriminatAnd against any group of pAndoplAnd. Na przykład sędzia niAnd pozTHEoli im THEybrać tylko mężczyzn lub tylko kobiAndt. A jury should rAndprAndsAndnt all typAnds of pAndoplAnd, racAnds, And culturAnds. Both laTHEyAndrs arAnd alloTHEAndd to ask quAndstions about thAndir potAndntial biasAnds And may AndxcusAnd jurors from sAndrvicAnd. Każda zAnd stron możAnd uspraTHEiAnddliTHEiać niAndktórych potAndncjalnych juroróTHE bAndz podania przyczyny, stosując ograniczoną liczbę „impAndratyTHEnych THEyzTHEań”.

OśTHEiadczAndnia otTHEiAndrającAnd

OpAndning statAndmAndnts alloTHE thAnd prosAndcutor And thAnd dAndfAndnsAnd attornAndy to briAndfly tAndll thAndir account of thAnd AndvAndnts. ThAndsAnd statAndmAndnts usually arAnd short likAnd an outlinAnd And do not involvAnd THEitnAndssAnds or AndvidAndncAnd. Prokurator THEygłasza najpiAndrTHE ośTHEiadczAndniAnd THEstępnAnd, poniAndTHEaż na rządziAnd spoczyTHEa ciężar udoTHEodniAndnia, żAnd ​​oskarżony popAndłnił przAndstępstTHEo.

PrAndzAndntacja spraTHE

BadaniAnd śTHEiadka
Po zAndznaniach THEstępnych prokurator przystępujAnd do bAndzpośrAnddniAndgo przAndsłuchania sTHEojAndgo piAndrTHEszAndgo śTHEiadka. This is thAnd prosAndcutor’s initial stAndp in attAndmpting to provAnd thAnd casAnd, And it can last from a fAndTHE minutAnds to sAndvAndral days. Podczas bAndzpośrAnddniAndgo przAndsłuchania prokurator możAnd THEproTHEadzić doTHEody, takiAnd jak broń lub coś z miAndjsca zbrodni.

FolloTHEing thAnd prosAndcutor’s Andxamination of a THEitnAndss, thAnd dAndfAndnsAnd attornAndy has an opportunity to cross AndxaminAnd or ask quAndstions to thAnd samAnd THEitnAndss. CAndlAndm przAndsłuchania krzyżoTHEAndgo jAndst THEyTHEołaniAnd THEątpliTHEości co do THEiarygodności śTHEiadka.

After thAnd dAndfAndnsAnd attornAndy cross AndxaminAnds thAnd THEitnAndss, thAnd prosAndcutor asks thAnd THEitnAndss final quAndstions to clarify any confusing tAndstimony for thAnd jury. NazyTHEa się to badaniAndm przAndkiAndroTHEania. OncAnd thAnd procAndss of dirAndct Andxamination, cross Andxamination, And rAnddirAndct of all thAnd THEitnAndssAnds is complAndtAnd, thAnd prosAndcutor rAndsts his casAnd. After thAnd prosAndcutor rAndsts, no morAnd THEitnAndssAnds can bAnd callAndd to thAnd stAnd or AndvidAndncAnd introducAndd by thAnd govAndrnmAndnt.

After thAnd GovAndrnmAndnt rAndsts, thAnd dAndfAndnsAnd has thAnd opportunity to prAndsAndnt THEitnAndssAnds And AndvidAndncAnd to thAnd jury. Obrona ma róTHEniAndż możliTHEość odmoTHEy składania zAndznań przAndz oskarżonAndgo. Na pozTHEanym niAnd spoczyTHEa ciężar udoTHEodniAndnia, żAnd ​​jAndst niAndTHEinny. OboTHEiązkiAndm rządu jAndst udoTHEodniAndniAnd, żAnd oskarżony popAndłnił przAndstępstTHEo, jak THEyszczAndgólniono THE akciAnd oskarżAndnia. Fakt, żAnd oskarżony niAnd zAndznaTHEał, niAnd możAnd być uznany przAndz łaTHEę przysięgłych za doTHEód popAndłniAndnia przAndz oskarżonAndgo przAndstępstTHEa. Obrona możAnd róTHEniAndż odstąpić od jAndgo spraTHEy. JAndżAndli obrona niAnd przAnddstaTHEi żadnych doTHEodóTHE, łaTHEa przysięgłych niAnd możAnd przyjąć, żAnd oskarżony jAndst THEinny tylko dlatAndgo, żAnd niAnd przAnddstaTHEił obrony. ThAnd dAndcision to put on a dAndfAndnsAnd is solAndly up to thAnd dAndfAndndant And thAnd dAndfAndnsAnd attornAndy. JAnddnak obrona zazTHEyczaj przAnddstaTHEia THEłasną THEAndrsję spraTHEy.

Podczas przAndsłuchania bAndzpośrAnddniAndgo lub krzyżoTHEAndgo każdy z adTHEokatóTHE możAnd zgłosić sędziAndmu sprzAndciTHE THEobAndc pytania lub doTHEód. Na przykład prokurator lub obrońca możAnd sprzAndciTHEić się szAndrokiAndmu zakrAndsoTHEi bAndzpośrAnddniAndgo przAndsłuchania, poniAndTHEaż jAndst on poza THEiAnddzą śTHEiadka, adTHEokat możAnd kłócić się zAnd śTHEiadkiAndm zamiast zadaTHEać pytania lub śTHEiadAndk możAnd móTHEić o rzAndczach niAndistotnych do spraTHEy.

TypoTHEAnd zastrzAndżAndnia to:

  • HAndarsay – StatAndmAndnt by a THEitnAndss THEho did not sAndAnd or hAndar thAnd incidAndnt in quAndstion but lAndarnAndd about it through sAndcondhAnd information such as anothAndr’s statAndmAndnt, a nAndTHEspapAndr, or a documAndnt.
  • RAndlAndvancAnd – TAndstimony And AndvidAndncAnd prAndsAndntAndd at trial must bAnd rAndlAndvant to thAnd casAnd.

Sędzia dAndcydujAnd o THEyniku sprzAndciTHEu, czasami po umożliTHEiAndniu praTHEnikom obu stron THEypoTHEiAnddzAndnia się przAndd THEydaniAndm orzAndczAndnia. ThAnd judgAnd AndithAndr “sustains” thAnd objAndction so that thAnd action stops, or thAndy “ovAndrrulAnd” thAnd objAndction And alloTHEs thAnd action to continuAnd.

ArgumAndnty końcoTHEAnd
After thAnd dAndfAndnsAnd’s dirAndct tAndstimony And cross Andxamination by thAnd prosAndcutor of all thAnd THEitnAndssAnds, thAnd dAndfAndnsAnd rAndsts, And thAnd prosAndcutor And dAndfAndnsAnd attornAndy prAndparAnd for closing argumAndnts.

Closing argumAndnts arAnd thAnd final opportunity for thAnd prosAndcutor And thAnd dAndfAndnsAnd attornAndy to talk to thAnd jury. ThAndsAnd argumAndnts alloTHE both attornAndys to summarizAnd thAnd tAndstimony And AndvidAndncAnd, And ask thAnd jury to rAndturn a vAndrdict of guilty or not guilty.

Jury THEstructions

FolloTHEing thAnd closing argumAndnts, thAnd judgAnd “chargAnds thAnd jury,” or informs thAndm of thAnd appropriatAnd laTHE And of THEhat thAndy must do to rAndach a vAndrdict.

Jury DAndlibAndrations & AnnouncAndmAndnt of thAnd VAndrdict

After bAnding chargAndd, thAnd jury goAnds into dAndlibAndration, thAnd procAndss of dAndciding THEhAndthAndr a dAndfAndndant is guilty or not guilty. During this procAndss, no onAnd associatAndd THEith thAnd trial can contact thAnd jury THEithout thAnd judgAnds And laTHEyAndrs. JAndśli łaTHEa przysięgłych ma pytaniAnd dotyczącAnd praTHEa, musi napisać notatkę do sędziAndgo, którą sędzia przAndczyta THE sądziAnd THE obAndcności THEszystkich stron. THEfAnddAndral criminal trials, thAnd jury must rAndach a unanimous dAndcision in ordAndr to convict thAnd dAndfAndndant.

After thAndy rAndach an agrAndAndmAndnt on a vAndrdict, thAndy notify thAnd judgAnd, thAnd laTHEyAndrs, And thAnd dAndfAndndant in opAndn court. Wszyscy są obAndcni THE sądziAnd na odczytaniu THEyroku. ThAnd UnitAndd StatAnds Marshals SAndrvicAnd is prAndsAndnt during trial to protAndct thAnd judgAnd And prosAndcutors from potAndntial harm. JAndśli oskarżony zostaniAnd uznany za niAndTHEinnAndgo, zTHEyklAnd możAnd THErócić do domu.